Back
vacates ex-parte injunction for by Celagenex Research
A Division Bench of the , comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, has set aside an obtained by and its founder. The Court found that the plaintiff had wilfully suppressed a and a from the plaint to create a false sense of urgency, thereby misleading the Single Judge who granted the injunction.
The Suppressed Details
The dispute concerns nutraceutical products sold under the trademarks 'NUREWIRE' (registered by Celagenex) and 'RewireX' (adopted by Nugenesys). Celagenex had issued a
to Nugenesys as early as
, and later filed an opposition to the 'RewireX' trademark application on
. Yet, when it approached the High Court in May 2026 seeking an ex-parte injunction, the plaint stated that the plaintiff learned of the infringing mark only in
"the first week of May, 2026."
The existence of the prior notice and opposition was completely omitted.
The Division Bench noted that the plaint, synopsis, and list of dates all projected a recent
, enabling Celagenex to seek exemption from pre-litigation mediation and from serving advance notice on the defendants. The withheld documents were eventually filed but were
"tucked away under a bunch of documents"
at serial no. 2 of the index with an obscure description—a practice the Court found insufficient to constitute proper disclosure.
Pattern of Conduct
The Court went a step further, examining three earlier suits filed by the same counsel representing Celagenex. In two other matters— and —courts had previously returned findings of suppression or concealment in the pleadings. The Division Bench observed: “ If this conduct is overlooked, it would be against all judicial canons. The counsel for the Respondent has literally bound down our hands to write this judgment to ensure that the impugned order stands vacated. ” Invoking the James Bond adage, the Court remarked: “ Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. ” It concluded that the repeated non-disclosure was no longer random but a deliberate design to interfere with the judicial process.
The Legal Standard
The judgment reaffirms the fundamental principle that a party seeking an ex-parte must approach the court with —utmost good faith. Quoting extensively from the seminal English case R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner (1917) and the ’s decision in Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (2010), the Bench held that warrants dismissal of the without going into the merits. The Court stated: “ The applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement. ”
Final Verdict
The Division Bench vacated the ex-parte injunction granted on , and dismissed the filed by Celagenex Research. It also imposed costs of ₹2,00,000 on the respondent, to be deposited with the Legal Services Committee within two weeks. The seized products were ordered to be released, with the appellants free to dispose of them. The Court made clear that the products themselves were not sub-standard and that any question of public health or safety would be examined at trial.
