Disposed

Binod Kumar, Proprietor M/S B.K. Food Products v. Raju Kumar, Proprietor M/S Amrapali Masala Udyog

Delhi HC23 Jul 2025CM(M)-IPD/33/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought to set aside an ex parte interim injunction on trademark grounds. The High Court directed the trial court to decide pending interlocutory applications within six weeks and disposed of the pending proceedings in this writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Expedited disposal of applications within six weeks from 30.07.2025; pending writ petition disposed of.

Binod Kumar, Proprietor M/S B.K. Food Products Vs Raju… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M)-IPD 33/2025 & CM 186-189/2025

¶4

BINOD KUMAR, PROPRIETOR M/S B.K. FOOD PRODUCTS

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tashriq Ahmad and Mr. Mohd. Abeer, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

RAJU KUMAR, PROPRIETOR M/S AMRAPALI MASALA UDYOG .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu and Mr. Roshan Kumar, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 23.07.2025

¶11

This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 24.01.2024 passed by learned District Judge, (Commercial)-02, North-West/Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS(COMM.) No. 38/2024.

¶12

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that vide order dated 24.01.2024, learned District Judge injuncted the Petitioner from using the

¶13

mark ‘QUEEN AAMRAPALI’/ or any other mark/trade

¶14

dress/packaging similar to the mark

¶15

in relation to impugned goods without giving an opportunity of hearing to

¶16

CM(M)-IPD 33/2025

¶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 28/07/2025 at 11:55:24

¶20

the Petitioner. Petitioner is a registered proprietor of trade mark ‘QUEEN

¶21

AAMRAPALI’/ and holds registration since 23.11.2021 in the mark ‘QUEEN AAMRAPALI’ and in the device mark from 16.05.2022. It is further submitted that this Court vide order dated 24.03.2025 in CM(M)IPD 6/2025 had directed the learned Trial Court to decide the applications filed by the Petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC as also application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the Respondent herein, as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31.05.2025, however, till date, the applications are undecided and the injunction order is causing grave prejudice to the Petitioner.

¶22

Issue notice.

¶23

Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent and submits that it is not as if the learned Trial Court is not hearing the applications. In fact, taking note of the order of this Court, applications have been partly heard on 29.05.2025 and further hearing is scheduled for 30.07.2025.

¶24

Order sheets of the Trial Court placed on record by the Petitioner indicate that application filed by the Petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of interim injunction order and the application filed by Respondent herein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC were heard on 29.05.2025 and further hearing is now scheduled for 30.07.2025. Learned Trial Court has noticed in the order dated 29.05.2025 that many cases have been reserved for orders and in light of this, separate request for extension of time has been sent to this Court in the present matter.

¶25

CM(M)-IPD 33/2025

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

This is a digitally signed order. 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 28/07/2025 at 11:55:24

¶28

Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of, requesting the learned District Judge to make every endeavour to decide the applications within six weeks from 30.07.2025, the next date before the Court, considering that ex parte injunction order is operating against the Petitioner from 24.01.2024.

¶29

Pending applications stand disposed of.

JYOTI SINGH, J

JULY 23, 2025

S.Sharma

CM(M)-IPD 33/2025

Page 3 of 3

Binod Kumar, Proprietor M/S B.K. Food Products v. Raju Kumar, Proprietor M/S Amrapali Masala Udyog

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar, Proprietor M/S B.K. Food Products v. Raju Kumar, Proprietor M/S Amrapali Masala Udyog

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Natco Pharma Ltd. Vs Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors.

Natco Pharma Ltd. Vs Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors.

Natco Pharma Ltd. Vs Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors.

Castrol Limited Vs Ibrahim Adamali Sanchawala, Trading as Ea & Sons and T-Max Lubricants and Anr.

Astral Ltd. Vs Grasim Industries Ltd.

Triveni Pattern Glass Ltd. Vs Triveni Glass Ltd. & Anr.