Trademark infringement suit was dismissed for no evidence despite the parties having recorded a settlement before the Commercial Court. The Division Bench set aside that order and decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, with refund of court fees.
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.
$~6
M/S SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED .....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Rishabh Srivastva and Ms. Yasheswini Sharma, Advs.
versus
M/S SURIYA SUNLITE LED PVT LTD .....RESPONDENT Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
%
ORDER (ORAL) 28.07.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 23 February 2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-051 , in CS(Comm) 5165/20212 . By the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court has dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff as being one of no evidence.
2. At the time of issuing notice in this appeal, the following order was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court:
“ RFA(COMM) 174/2024
1 “learned Commercial Court” hereinafter
2 M/s Sur y a Roshni Ltd v M/s Suri y a Sunlite LED Pvt Ltd
Page 1 of 5
Signature Not VerifiedRFA(COMM) 174/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.07.2025 20:05:29
Pvt. Ltd. The appellant had filed the said suit inter alia praying seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent from using any trademark identical to the appellant’s registered trademarks, as set out in the plaint. The appellant had also sought decree of damages along with the cost in addition to decree for rendition of accounts and for delivery up of all infringing materials.
“Statement of Sh. Ambrish Shrivastva, AR of plaintiff.
The matter has been settled in Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages and also with the undertaking of the defendant that he shall not use, market, advertise and sell any kind of transaction commercial or otherwise in relation to electric bulbs/LED bulbs with the trademark/copyright/ tradedress/SURYA or SURYA SUNLITE or SURIYA or SURIYA SUNUTE which infringes the tradename/ trademark/copyright of the plaintiff impression SURYA or SURYAROSHNI with or without logo of rising sun. The defendant has further undertaken not to use tradename/trademark/copyright /tradedress which is identical or similar to the mark/copyright of the plaintiff.
Page 2 of 5
Signature Not VerifiedRFA(COMM) 174/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.07.2025 20:05:29
The settled amount of damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be payable by the defendant in four EMIs, each of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the very first date of April, May, June and July, 2023. In case of two consecutive defaults of EMIs, the defendant shall be liable pay the whole settled amount of Rs. five lakhs and the earlier paid EMIs shall be forfeited.”
xxxxx
“Statement of Sh. Nasir Ul Din Wani, S/o Gias Din, R/o Punara, Basant Garh Khanad, Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir.
The matter has been settled in Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages. I under take that I will not use, market, advertise and sell any kind of transaction commercial or otherwise in relation to electric bulbs/LED bulbs with the trademark/copyright/trade dress SURYA or SURYA SUNLITE or SURIYA or SURIYA SUNLITE which infringes the tradename/trademark/copyright of the plaintiff impression SURYA or SURYAROSHNI with or without logo of rising sun. I also undertake not to use tradename/trademark/copyright/trade dress which is identical or similar to the mark/copyright of the plaintiff.
I undertake to pay the settled amount of damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- in four EMIs, each of Rs. 1,25,000/-, on the very first date of April, May, June and July, 2023. In case of two consecutive defaults of EMIs, I shall be liable to pay the whole settled amount of Rs. five lakhs and the earlier paid EMIs shall be forfeited.”
“The defendant has brought some seized goods to be taken into custody by the plaintiff.
At the very outset, counsel for the plaintiff expressed apprehension that quantity of the brought goods was scant. She was asked to count the goods and file inventory. The report filed by her shows that there is huge deficiency of quantity of goods.
Matter has been settled and in this regard, statement of defendant and AR of the plaintiff recorded separately. Matter is settled in ₹
Page 3 of 5
Signature Not VerifiedRFA(COMM) 174/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.07.2025 20:05:29
5 lakhs with the further condition that the defendant shall not use, market, advertise and sell any kind of transition commercial or otherwise, in relation to electric bulbs/LED bulbs with trademark/copyright/trade-dress SURYA or SURYA SUNLITE or SURIYA or SURIYA SUNLITE which infringes the tradename/trademark/copyright of the plaintiff impression SURYA or SURYAROSHNI with or without logo of rising sun. he further undertook not to use trade-name/trademark/copyright/trade-dress which is identical or similar to the mark/copyright of the plaintiff. He further undertook to pay the settled amount of ₹ 5 lakhs in four EMIs, each of ₹ 1.25 lakh on the first date of April, May, June and July 2023. The default clause is that if there was two consecutive defaults of EMIs, he shall be liable to pay ₹ 5 lakhs and earlier paid amount shall be forfeited. To the same effect is the statement of AR of the plaintiff.
If parties did not stick with the statements, they are required to file replies to each others applications and defendant is directed to produce the remaining goods on next date.
Special Lok Adalat is scheduled to be held on 19-03-2023 in which IPR cases shall also be dealt with. So parties are directed to appear before Special Lok Adalat on that day.
Matter is adjourned for receiving report from lok Adalat on 0104-2023.”
Page 4 of 5
Signature Not VerifiedRFA(COMM) 174/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.07.2025 20:05:29
3. Despite issuance of notice, none has appeared for the respondent. Every conceivable mode of attempting service on the respondent has been effected including publication in the local newspapers. There is still no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
4. Clearly, as the dispute between the respondents stood settled on 2 March 2023, the respondent is not interested in prosecuting the matter.
5. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order dated 23 February 2024. CS (Comm) 5165/2021, filed between the parties, shall stand decreed in terms of the settlement as recorded in the order dated 2 March 2023 passed by the learned Commercial Court and reproduced in para 12 of the order dated 8 May 2024.
6. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the aforesaid settlement.
7. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
8. The appellant shall be entitled to refund of the court fess deposited by it, if any.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
JULY 28, 2025/Ar
Page 5 of 5
Signature Not VerifiedRFA(COMM) 174/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 9.07.2025 20:05:29
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit dismissed for no evidence should be decreed in terms of a settlement recorded by the Commercial Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Surya Roshni Limited
M/s Suriya Sunlite LED Pvt Ltd
C. Hari Shankar
Om Prakash Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
A first appeal against a decree of a Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
