Defendant in a trademark infringement suit sought examination of the Local Commissioners who executed a search-and-seize commission, challenging their raid on additional premises. The High Court upheld dismissal, holding no case was made out for their examination, and dismissed the Article 227 petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~43
Through: Mr. Abhijit Mishra, Advocate.
versus
HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Divyansh Jain and Ms. Akansha Gupta, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
Signature Not Verified
CM(M)-IPD 29/2025 Page 1 of 9
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 14:38:02
“ 13. Accordingly, this Court appoints Sh. Chitragupt Dagar, Advocate, Enrolment No.D/2614/2018, Mobile No. 7011849102 and Sh. Kunal Kumar, Advocate, Enrolment No.D/3636/2020, Mobile No. 9958676776, 7669995766 as the Local Commissioners, to visit the following premises of the defendants:
| Sr. No. |
Name of the Local Commissioner |
Premises | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Sh. Chitragupt |
Ashok Kuma | r |
| Dagar, Advocate (Mobile |
At: House 4/1888, |
No. Rama |
|
| No.7011849102) | Block, Gali Shahdara, 110032 |
No.3, Delhi- |
|
| 2. | Sh. Kunal Kumar, Advocate (Mobile |
Ashok Kuma At: Mahavir |
r Block, |
| No.9958676776) | Opposite No.10, Sha Delhi-11003 |
Gali hdara, 2 |
14. The commission will be executed in the following terms:
a. The learned local commissioners shall visit the premises of the defendant and inventorise and take into custody all goods bearing the marks registered as trademarks in the plaintiff's favour. They shall also inventorise and take into custody all equipment, ink and other materials which may be
Signature Not Verified
CM(M)-IPD 29/2025 Page 2 of 9
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 14:38:02
used for printing or affixing the infringing marks on any goods. Packing material, used for packing goods bearing the infringing marks shall also be inventorised and taken into custody.
b. Consequent on inventorisation, the goods shall be handed over under superdari to the defendant, subject to the strict condition that they shall not be dealt with in any fashion whatsoever without the leave of this Court.
c. The commission shall be executed peacefully without unnecessarily disturbing the legitimate business activities of the defendant. The defendant/occupiers of the aforesaid premises are also directed to cooperate with the execution of the commission.
d. During the course of the execution of the commission, should the learned Local Commissioners come to learn of any other premises where similar infringing goods are present, the commission would be executed in the terms stated in this order at such other premises as well.
e. The learned local commissioners would be at liberty to effect forced ingress into any premises, should it become necessary for execution of the commission.
f. The learned local commissioners are also at liberty to seek the assistance of the jurisdictional police authorities, should it become necessary to do so. In that event, this order shall operate as a direction to the SIHO of the jurisdictional Police Station to provide all such assistance as is necessary for execution of the commission.
g. The proceedings of the commission shall be videographed at the expense of the plaintiff, so as to assure the Court that there has been no impediment in execution of the commission.
h. Consequent on execution of the commission, the plaintiff shall be entitled to depute one representative to accompany each of the learned local commissioners during the execution of the commission.
i. Consequent on execution of the commission, the learned local commissioners shall file their reports with the Registry of this Court within a period of one week
j. The time for compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC shall stand reckoned from the date of filing of such reports by the learned local commissioners. The plaintiff shall be at liberty to comply with the said provision within a week thereof.
k. The commission shall be executed on the date and time to be fixed by the parties on consultation with the learned local commissioners. Each of the local commissioners shall be entitled to a fee of Rs. 90,000/- each apart
Signature Not Verified
CM(M)-IPD 29/2025 Page 3 of 9
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 14:38:02
from transport to and fro as well as lodging in case it becomes necessary to do so.
l. Fee of the commission shall be payable in advance of the execution of the commission.
15. Let this order be not uploaded on the website of this Court till the commissions are executed and reports in that regard are filed by the learned local commissioners.
16. Party is directed, not to share this order, picture of proceedings carry out under this order be clicked without permission of the Court. Copy of plaint alongwith annexure and copy of this order be furnished to the defendants by the plaintiff. The search and seize be carried out on date and time be fixed by the plaintiff within next four weeks.
17. Summons of the suit and notice of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC be served upon the defendants by the plaintiff in the presence of Local Commissioners. ”
“ (a) Whether the search and seizure raid / proceedings were carried out on 01.06.2024 and 17.06.2024 by the plaintiff were illegal, resulted in
Signature Not Verified
CM(M)-IPD 29/2025 Page 4 of 9
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 14:38:02
trespassing and in violation of Court's order dated 27.05.2024? (OPD) ”
“ 19. The Court, vide order dated 27.05.2024, appointed Mr. Chitra Gupt Dagar, Advocate to inspect the premises at H. No.4/1888, Rama Block, Gali No. 3, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 and Mr. Kunal Kumar, Advocate to inspect the premises at Mahavir Block, Opposite Gali No. 10, Shahdara, Delhi-l10032 and conduct search and seizure proceedings, as mentioned in Para No. 14 of the said order.
20. Pursuant to the said order, Mr. Chitra Gupt Dagar, Ld. Local Commissioner visited the premises at H. No. 4/1888, Rama Block, Gali No. 3, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 and two other premises identified during the process of inspection. However, no counterfeit products were found there. It is relevant to note that Local Commissioner allowed Mr. Kunal Kumar another Local Commissioner to accompany him during the inspection of the premises at H. No.4/1888, Rama Block, Gali No. 3, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
21. On 17.06.2024 at 05.30 p.m., Mr. Kunal Kumar, Ld. Local Commissioner inspected the premises at H. No. 4/1887, Rama Block, Gali No. 3, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 and seized packaging boxes, printing plates containing the plaintiff’s trademark in the presence of the defendant, namely, Mr. Vijay Kumar. The relevant photographs of the seized products are depicted at Page No. 17-38 of his report. At 05.50 p.m., he inspected the premises at H. No. 4/1888, Rama Block, Gali No. 3, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 and recovered packaging boxes from there. He inspected the premises at H. No. 4/1622, Mahavir Block, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 and recovered packaging boxes . ”
[Emphasis supplied]
Signature Not Verified
CM(M)-IPD 29/2025 Page 5 of 9
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 14:38:02
examine the two Local Commissioners appointed by the Court. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 5th June, 2025. The Commercial Court has given reasons for dismissal of the said application which are detailed in paragraph 3 of the impugned order. The said paragraph is set out below:-
“ 3. The said application deserves outright dismissal for the reasons. First, the name of Mr. Chitra Gupt Dagar, Ld. Local Commissioner was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. Second , the grounds furnished for summoning of Ld. Local Commissioners as witnesses are already addressed by this Court, vide order dated 31.05.2025. Third , the application is in the nature of a review application without disclosing any manifest error in the said order. Fourth , there is no worthy objection to reports of Ld. Local Commissioners touching any of the matters referred to them or as to their reports. Fifth , there is no reason for this Court to dissatisfy with the proceedings or reports submitted by Ld. Local Commissioners. ”
Signature Not Verified
CM(M)-IPD 29/2025 Page 6 of 9
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 14:38:02
made from the premises of the petitioner/defendant. He further submits that the application under Order XXVI Rule 10 of the CPC was filed by the petitioner/defendant only to delay the proceedings in the suit.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M)-IPD 29/2025 Page 7 of 9
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 14:38:02
Signature Not Verified
CM(M)-IPD 29/2025 Page 8 of 9
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 14:38:02
petitioner/defendant was not served with the summons of the civil suit at the time of execution of the commission. It is also stated that the respondent/plaintiff did not comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC.
AMIT BANSAL (JUDGE)
JULY 14, 2025 Rzu
Signature Not Verified
CM(M)-IPD 29/2025 Page 9 of 9
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:1 8.07.2025 14:38:02
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the defendant was entitled under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC to examine the Local Commissioners appointed in the suit.
Whether the Local Commissioners acted beyond the mandate of the order dated 27.05.2024 in raiding premises not specifically named in it.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay
Havells India Limited
Amit Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
