Marico Limited vs Pragati Swapnil Shete — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Marico Limited vs Pragati Swapnil Shete — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suit decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (f) of the plaint pursuant to amicable settlement; Consent Terms accepted as undertakings to the Court; refund of court-fees as per rules; Court Receiver discharged without passing of accounts with Receiver's costs, charges and expenses payable by the Plaintiff within eight days on demand; pending applications disposed of; Leave Petition No. 117 of 2026 allowed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit, having been amicably settled between the parties through Consent Terms, should be decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (f) of the plaint upon Defendant No. 2's submission to decree on admission.

Ratio / Principle

Defendant No. 1 is the wife of Defendant No. 2 and executed a letter of authorization in favour of Defendant No. 2, annexed to the Consent Terms; the Consent Terms are signed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and by an authorized signatory of the Plaintiff.

Key takeaways

The identity of the Defendants was verified from the Aadhaar card placed on record.ratio¶25
Defendant No. 2, present in person, tendered an affidavit (taken on record) reiterating the terms of the Consent Terms and submitted to decree on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (f) of the plaint.ratio¶25
The Consent Terms were tendered, taken on record and marked 'X' for identification; the statements made in the Consent Terms were accepted as undertakings given to the Court.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Commercial Division (Sharmila U. Deshmukh J.), 17 April 2026 - Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 7439 of 2026, Marico Limited v. Pragati Swapnil Shete and Another: dispute reported as amicably settled. Consent Terms signed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and by the authorized signatory of the Plaintiff were taken on record and marked 'X'; Defendant No. 1, stated to be the wife of Defendant No. 2, executed a letter of authorization in favour of Defendant No. 2 annexed to the Consent Terms, and the identity of the Defendants was verified from the Aadhaar card on record. Defendant No. 2, present in person, tendered an affidavit reiterating the Consent Terms and submitted to decree on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (f) of the plaint; the statements in the Consent Terms were accepted as undertakings given to the Court. The suit was decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (f). Refund of court-fees was ordered as per rules. The Court Receiver's Report was disposed of and the Receiver discharged without passing of accounts, his costs, charges and expenses being payable by the Plaintiff within eight days on demand. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of. The companion Leave Petition No. 117 of 2026 was allowed in view of the settlement. No contested issue was adjudicated; no statute or precedent was cited and no monetary quantum is stated in the text.

2026:BHC-OS:9623

905 COMIP(L)-7439-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 7439 OF 2026 WITH

LEAVE PETITION NO. 117 OF 2026 IN

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 7439 OF 2026

Marico Limited

...Plaintiff

Versus

Pragati Swapnil Shete and Another ...Defendants

Ms. Hasti Parekh, Laher Shah, Ms. Saieraje Patil for Plaintiff. Mr. Mohit Soni, Plaintiff’s representative. Mr. Swapnil Shete, Defendant No. 2 present.

——————

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 17^th APRIL, 2026

P. C. :

Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 7439 of 2026 :

1. This Court is informed that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.

2. The Consent Terms are tendered which are taken on record and

marked ‘X’ for identification. The Consent Terms are signed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and by authorized signatory of the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 2 is present in person and tenders the Affidavit

reiterating the terms of the Consent Terms and submits to decree on

1 of 2

Sairaj

905 COMIP(L)-7439-2026.doc

admission. The said Affidavit is taken on record. The Defendant No. 1 is the wife of Defendant No. 2 and has executed letter of authorization granting authorization to Defendant No. 2 which is annexed to the Consent Terms. The identity of the Defendants is verified from the aadhar card which is placed on record. The Defendant No. 2 reiterates the terms of the Consent Terms. He submits to decree on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (f) of the plaint.

3. The statements made in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertaking given to this Court.

4. The suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (f) of the plaint.

5. Refund of Court-fees as per rules.

6. Court Receiver’s Report is disposed of. Court Receiver is discharged without passing of accounts. All costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver to be paid by the Plaintiff within period of eight days on demand being raised by Court Receiver.

7. In view of above, nothing survives for consideration in pending applications, if any, and the same stand disposed of.

Leave Petition No. 117 of 2026 :

8. As the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, Leave Petition is allowed.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

2 of 2

Sairaj