Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Non-Compliance on Counter Affidavits Draws Exemplary Costs Warning: Supreme Court in Gauri Maulekhi PIL
13 Mar 2026
SLPs Challenging PoP Idol Immersion Orders Disposed as Infructuous; Liberty to Assist Bombay HC: Supreme Court
13 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
H.S. Sahni – Appellant
Versus
Mukul Singhal – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 17.01.2022 (hereafter `the impugned judgment') passed by the learned Single Judge in C.S. (COMM) no. 31/2021. In terms of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge stayed the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in terms of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter `the CPC').
2. The learned Single Judge found that the subject matter of both the suits, that is, CS (COMM) 146/2019 and CS (COMM) 31/2021, "is exactly the same". The learned Single Judge observed that "The concurrent trials will lead not only to the multiplicity of litigation but also to the possibility of contrary decisions where in one suit, one party is allowed to use its trademarks and in the second suit, the same party is injuncted from us
Stay of proceedings is justified to prevent multiplicity of litigation and contradictory judgments when dealing with overlapping subject matters.
Under Section 10 of CPC, a previously instituted suit cannot be stayed if a subsequent suit filed between the same parties, in respect of the same subject matter, is pending before the same court.
Section 10 of the CPC is mandatory to prevent contradictory verdicts by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
The court established that a prima facie case for trademark infringement warrants prompt injunctions to prevent irreparable harm and protect public interest.
Section 10 of the Code prevents trial of a suit if the matter is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit involving the same parties, which was not met here.
Provisions of Section 10 of the CPC are mandatory, preventing parallel litigation over identical issues to avoid conflicting verdicts.
The court emphasized the necessity for timely decisions on ex parte injunctions, affirming the right of appellants to use trademarks without undue delay.
Section 10 of the CPC prevents concurrent trials of suits with identical issues; distinct issues allow separate proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article