Nitin Maheshwari and Anr. Vs Patanjali Foods Limited

$~34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CM(M)-IPD 36/2025

NITIN MAHESHWARI AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Dharmender K. Yadav, Ms. Himani, Ms. Sandhya Anand & Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocates Versus

¶5

PATANJALI FOODS LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Bansal, Mr. Shivang Bansal, Mr. Shivendra Pratap Singh & Ms. Namrata Jain, Advocates.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 02.09.2025

¶7

CM No.54166/2025

¶8

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶9

The Application stands disposed of.

¶10

CM(M)-IPD 36/2025

¶11

The Petitioners / Defendants have filed the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 05.06.2025 (‘ Impugned Order ’) passed in CS(COMM) No.565/2024 (“ Suit ”) by the learned Commercial Court-03 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘ Commercial Court ’).

¶12

Issue Notice.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the Respondent / Plaintiff accepts notice.

¶14

The Petitioners / Defendants had preferred an Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the Suit for de-sealing and release of the goods, being oil, seized and sealed by the learned Local

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 04/09/2025 at 14:46:29

¶17

Commissioner pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned Commercial Court. The details of the goods seized are as under:

¶18

“S.		Particulars	Quantity
No.
1.	Mahakaushal	1 ltr. (1 x 12 Pouch) (Packed)	216 Boxes (Packed)
2.	Mahakaushal	1 ltr. (unpacked)	08 Pouch loose
3.	_Mahakaushal _ Pouch)	ka Tammay 500 ml (1x30	15 Box (Packed)
4.	_Mahakaushal _ Pouch)	ka Annapurna 1 ltr. (1x12	262 Boxes (packed)
5.	_Mahakaushal _ pouch)	ka Annapurna 500 ml (1x24	70 Boxes (Packed)
6.	Mahakaushal	empty can (15 ltr.)	36 Can (empty)
7.	Shri Soya Star	Empty can (15 ltr.)	1 Can (empty)
8.	Mahakaushal (green)	ka Annapurna 15 ltr. Can	20 Can (packed)
9.	Mahakaushal (white)	ka Annapurna 15 ltr. Can	20 Can (packed)
10.	Mahakaushal	ka Annapurna 5 ltr. Can	16 Can (packed)
11.	Mahakaushal	ka Annapurna (Roll Packing)	2 Roll
12.	Mahakaushal	ka Annapurna 500 ml	7 Pouch (loose)
13.	Mahakaushal	1 ltr. Loose Pouch	10 Pouch (loose)
14.	_Mahakaushal _ Pouch	ka Annapurna 1 ltr. Loose	8 Pouch (loose)
15.	_Mahakaushal, _ _Kahakaushal _ empty (1x15 c	Mahakaushal ka Annapurna, ka Tanmay (Packing cartoon artoon)	160 Bundle”

¶19

The learned Commercial Court vide the Impugned Order observed as

¶20

under:

¶21

“11. The moment oil is removed from the sealed packaging, there are high chances that same may become contaminated causing health hazardous to the life of people particularly children and vulnerable sections of society. Hence, it will not be appropriate to release the oil from sealed packaging to defendants. Hence, this prayer cannot be granted.

¶22

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 04/09/2025 at 14:46:29

¶23

12. Further, defendants have filed an affidavit saying that life of seized products are 9 months and 6 months. As per Ld. Local Commissioner’s report goods were seized on 02.01.2025. Therefore, almost 6 months have passed since goods were seized. Defendants have not clarified as to which goods have life span of 9 months and which goods have life span of 6 months. In the absence of such clarifications about life span of seized goods, it will be hazardous to release the goods to defendants for being sold in open market.

¶24

13. However, considering the averments of application that oil has started dripping from the cans and is causing harm to inhabitants of premises, seized goods may be shifted to a safe place by defendants in the presence and with consultation of representative of plaintiff or in the alternative contents of seized goods viz, oil, an be destroyed in a safe manner in the presence of representative of plaintiff and representative of defendant no. I & 2.

¶25

14. In view of above discussion, the application filed by defendant no. 1 & 2 under Section 151 CPC for de-sealing and release of goods is dismissed.”

¶26

After some arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners / Defendants and the learned Counsel for the Respondent / Plaintiff agree that the Impugned Order be modified to the extent that the oil seized and sealed by the learned Local Commissioner be de-sealed and disposed of in a manner to be jointly agreed upon between the representatives of the Petitioners / Defendants and the Respondent / Plaintiff so that the oil is not used for any human / animal consumption.

¶27

Further, if the Parties are able to find a buyer, who is willing to purchase the oil that is seized and sealed by the Local Commissioner, the same shall be jointly sold / disposed of in the presence of the representatives of the Petitioners / Defendants and the Respondent / Plaintiff, and the proceeds from such sale of the oil shall be deposited with the learned Commercial Court.

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 04/09/2025 at 14:46:29

¶30

Accordingly, with the consent of the Parties, the Impugned Order is modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶31

In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in the present Petition. The Petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.

¶32

TEJAS KARIA, J

¶33

SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 ‘gsr’

¶34

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 04/09/2025 at 14:46:29

Nitin Maheshwari and Anr. v. Patanjali Foods Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Maheshwari and Anr. v. Patanjali Foods Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Titan Company Limited Vs M/S Bihani Jewellers & Anr.

Mankind Agritech Private Limited Vs Bloom Seal Containers Private Limited & Anr.

Doordarshan Directorate & Anr. Vs M/S Voice, Vision

Pranabkumar Banerjee Vs Registrar of Trademarks Office

The Procter and Gamble Company Vs Mr. Ved Mani Tiwari & Anr.

Darzi (India) LLP & Anr. Vs Kirti Dhamija