Delhi High Court Accepts Late Written Statement in Trademark Suit: Danone Asia Pacific

Recent proceedings before the High Court of Delhi have shed light on the strict yet flexible nature of procedural compliance in commercial litigation. In the matter involving Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte Ltd , Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora addressed critical issues regarding the enforcement of injunctions and the acceptance of written statements filed with minor delays.

A Path Toward Compliance

The case, which centers on allegations of trademark infringement by M/s Maxx Farmacia India LLP and Sun Bioceuticals Pvt Ltd, reached a milestone regarding the implementation of judicial orders. Previously, the plaintiff had initiated action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the breach of an injunction order dated 19.02.2025.

During the hearing, counsel for Defendant No. 2 confirmed that all infringing listings—previously active on e-commerce platforms like Meesho and IndiaMart—had been successfully removed. This compliance, validated by an affidavit, brought the specific dispute regarding the breach of injunction to a close, as the court noted the application had already been disposed of.

Balancing Procedural Rigor

Following the resolution of the enforcement issue, the court turned its attention to a motion filed by the plaintiff to strike off the written statement submitted by Defendant No. 2. The plaintiff argued that the filing exceeded the statutory thirty-day limit.

However, the defense clarified that the initial filing took place on 03.05.2025, but was marked with defects by the Registry, necessitating a re-filing on 07.05.2025. Acknowledging this technical hurdle, the court adopted a pragmatic approach to justice.

Key Observations

The High Court’s reasoning pivoted on the intent of the CPC to ensure fair adjudication rather than punishing minor administrative delays. The court stated:

• "This Court has perused the document no. 2 filed by the defendant with its reply, and on perusal thereof, it shows that the written statement was e filed on 03.05.2025."
• "Even as per the plaintiff, the written statement was filed on 07.05.2025, the delay, if any, is of four [4] days in filing the written statement, which is hereby condoned."
• "The written statement is directed to be taken on record."

Implications for Future Litigation

By condoning the four-day delay, the court has signaled that while the sanctity of timelines in commercial disputes is paramount, technical defects that are rectified promptly should not serve as an absolute barrier to a party's right to defend their position. The plaintiff has now been granted 30 days to file a replication, ensuring that the pleadings remain robust and the dispute proceeds toward a merit-based resolution.

The court has scheduled further hearings for both the main commercial suit and the associated trademark petition for early January 2026, marking a continuing commitment to orderly case management in intellectual property matters.