Jeetendra Kumar Agrahari Vs Ajay Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.

The Petitioner has filed the present Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”) read with Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, as amended under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 seeking leave to place Additional Documents on record.

¶10

By way of this Application, the Petitioner has sought to place on record the Judgment dated 09.01.2026 passed in the Suit filed before the Commercial Court at Gorakhpur, being OS No.05/2022, titled Jeetendra Kumar Agrahari v. Maa Sheetla Agro Chakki India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr (“ Judgment ”) .

¶11

Vide order dated 11.03.2026, Notice was issued in this Application.

¶12

The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that as recorded in the Judgment, the Parties have entered into a Compromise Deed. The C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 193/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 12/05/2026 at 11:24:29

¶15

relevant term of the said Compromise Deed is extracted in Paragraph No. 2(i) of this Application, which is reproduced below:

¶16

“i. That the Defendants hereby expressly admit, acknowledge, and undertake that they themselves, or through any of their directors, shareholders, representatives, agents, successors, associate concerns, subsidiary entities, assisting units, or through any other person whatsoever, shall not use in any manner the name, mark, expression, pronunciation, trade dress, trade mark, logo, label, packaging, colour combination, design, or any visual or audio medium identical with or deceptively similar to "Maa Sheetla Bhog", "Maa Sheetla Bhog Quality No.-01", "Maa Sheetla Agro", "Maa Sheetla Gold" or any other mark / name similar thereto.”

¶17

Accordingly, the certified copy of the Judgment along with its English translation filed as Document No.1 to this Application is taken on record.

¶18

The Application stands disposed of.

¶19

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 193/2024

¶20

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the Judgment, the prayer sought in the present Petition may be allowed as Respondent No.1 has agreed that he shall not use any name, mark, expression, pronunciation, trade dress, trade mark, logo, label, packaging, colour combination, design, or any visual or audio medium identical with or deceptively similar to "Maa Sheetla Bhog", "Maa Sheetla Bhog Quality No.-01", "Maa Sheetla Agro", "Maa Sheetla Gold" or any other mark / name similar thereto.

¶21

The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, on instructions, submits that Respondent No. 1 has no objection if the present Petition is allowed.

¶22

In view of the Judgment and the statements made on behalf of the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.1, the present Petition is allowed.

¶23

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 193/2024

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

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 12/05/2026 at 11:24:29

¶26

Respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith remove / rectify / cancel the Trade Mark “SUGOTRA MAA SHEETLA BHOG” registered under Trade Mark No. 4435801 in Class 30 in the name of Respondent No. 1, from the Register of Trade Marks.

¶27

The present Petition and pending Applications stand disposed of.

¶28

TEJAS KARIA, J

¶29

MAY 8, 2026 ‘gsr’

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 193/2024

¶32

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 12/05/2026 at 11:24:29

Jeetendra Kumar Agrahari v. Ajay Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetendra Kumar Agrahari v. Ajay Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xx Vs Y

Xx and Anr. Vs Yy

Fmc Corporation and Ors. Vs Natco Pharma Limited

Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. Vs M/S Rockwell Pharmaceuticals & Ors.

Saga Lifesciences Limited Vs Indian Herbo Pharma

Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited Vs John Doe & Ors.