Allowed

Mr Murtaza Gheewala v. Deewan Chand Om Prakash

Delhi HC9 Oct 2025CM(M)-IPD/1/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The parties submitted agreed terms based on a parallel suit in Maharashtra, allowing the petitioner to withdraw pending actions against the respondent and disposing of the suit under CS(COMM) 2077/2022.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; suit CS(COMM) 2077/2022 disposed of based on parties' submissions; direction given to respond to opposing counsel affidavits.

Mr Murtaza Gheewala Vs Deewan Chand Om Prakash — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M)-IPD 1/2025 & CM 17/2025

¶4

MR MURTAZA GHEEWALA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Abhishek Verma, Mr. Kunal Tyagi and Mr. Sanskar Sehgal, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

DEEWAN CHAND OM PRAKASH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Mr. Anurya Sabharwal and Ms Isha Dabas, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 09.10.2025

¶12

This petition has been filed impugning the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the District Judge dismissing the Petitioner’s application under Order VII rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) in CS(COMM) 2077/2022.

¶13

The Petitioner is the original defendant in the suit proceedings.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Petitioner has instituted a suit against Suzhou Dake Machinery Co. Ltd (‘Suzhou Dake’) before the Competent Court in Maharashtra. The details whereof are set out in paragraph 8 of this petition which reads as under:

¶15

That as it came to the knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner had filed the civil suit No. 01/2022 on 10.02.2022 against Suzhou Dake Machinery Co. Ltd U/S 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 before the Ld. District and Sessions Court at Thane, Maharashtra. (suit for infringement). The said suit was transferred and pending before the Ld. District and Sessions Court at Bhiwandi,

¶16

CM(M)-IPD 1/2025

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2025 at 13:02:40

¶20

Maharashtra. The copy of the case status of Civil Suit No. 01/2022 on 10.02.2022 filed by the petitioner against M/s. Suzhou Dake Machinery Co. Ltd U/S 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 is annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-5 .

¶21

He states that Petitioner is legitimately enforcing its legal rights against Suzhou Dake Machinery Co. Ltd in Maharashtra.

¶22

He states that Respondent herein is the authorized dealer of Suzhou Dake Machinery Co. Ltd. and Petitioner herein is aggrieved that Respondent has instituted a suit against the Petitioner herein before the District Court Tis Hazari under Section 142 of the Trademark Act, 1999.

¶23

He states on instructions that Petitioner will not issue any cease-anddesist notice to the Respondent or take any other legal proceedings against the Respondent herein until there is a favorable injunction/interim order or final order passed in favour of this Petitioner in the civil suit filed before the Court at Maharashtra.

¶24

He states that in view of the aforesaid statement, this petition be allowed and the suit before the Trial Court be disposed of.

¶25

He states that he will file an affidavit of the authorized representative.

¶26

In response, learned counsel for the Respondent states that he is satisfied with the aforesaid submission of the Petitioner and Respondent as well undertakes that it will abide by any interim or final order passed by the Court at Maharashtra in civil suit, with respect to Suzhou Dake Machinery Co. Ltd. He agrees that this petition and the civil suit pending before the Trial Court can be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid submissions of the parties.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he will file an affidavit

¶28

CM(M)-IPD 1/2025

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2025 at 13:02:40

¶32

of its authorized representative within a period of two (2) weeks and serve a copy on the learned counsel for the defendant.

¶33

The statement of the Petitioner and Respondent is taken on record and they are bound down to the same.

¶34

This Court notes that Respondent is the Authorized Dealer of Suzhou Dake Machinery Co. Ltd. and it is observed that Respondent will remain bound by any interim or final order, if any, passed against Suzhou Dake Machinery Co. Ltd. with respect to use of the trademark in the civil suit pending at Maharashtra.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed, with a direction that CS(COMM) 2077/2022 pending before District Court Tis Hazari as well stands disposed of in terms of the submission of the parties directions passed in this order.

¶36

It is clarified that nothing said in this order is an expression of opinion on the merits of the dispute pending between Petitioner and Suzhou Dake Machinery Co. Ltd. before the Civil Court at Maharashtra.

¶37

Copy of this order be sent to District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts for information and compliance.

¶38

The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

¶39

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶40

OCTOBER 9, 2025/ hp

¶41

CM(M)-IPD 1/2025

¶42

Page 3 of 3

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2025 at 13:02:40

Mr Murtaza Gheewala v. Deewan Chand Om Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Murtaza Gheewala v. Deewan Chand Om Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Johnson and Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. Vs the Controller of Patents

Mr. Rajiv Gupta & Ors. Vs Mr. Hira Lal Gupta & Ors.

Hero Investcorp Private Limited Vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe)

One World One Family Spiritual Society, Inc. Vs the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, India & Anr.

Ms Monica Chadda Vs Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.

Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar (John Doe)