- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
- Outcome
- Injunction refused
Headnote
Ex parte ad interim injunction restraining use of the impugned logo discharged, the Court holding that it should not be continued. The plaintiff had obtained the order on urgency without disclosing that the defendants had been using the impugned logo since 2022, a suppression the Court found deliberate and culpable; had the facts been disclosed, notice would have been directed instead. On Marico and Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya the Court retains a discretion to continue or impose an injunction despite non-disclosure where the interests of justice require it, but here the undisclosed facts were important to the issues, the duty of full and frank disclosure needed to be enforced, the failure was culpable, and the defendants being a services business there was no risk of dissipation of assets. A strong case on the merits is never a good excuse for failing to disclose.
Disposition
Ex parte ad interim injunction discharged. Injunction refused.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.