SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Velmurugan, K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.
M/s.V.V.V and Sons Edible Oils Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
M/s.Meenakshi Overseas LLC – Respondent
O.S.A.No.63 of 2019, O.S.ANo.64 of 2019 & OSA(CAD) No.23 of 2022 & O.S.A.No.139 of 2025, O.S.A.No.140 of 2025 & C.M.P.Nos. 6021 of 2019 & 2952 of 2022
Decided On : 05-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Advocate Assisted by Mr.V.Anand, Mr.B.Raveendran and Mr.S.Babu
For the Respondent:Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, Senior Advocate Assisted by Ms.Preetha Natarajan, Mr. K. Harishankar, Mr. R. Udhayakumar

Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is strictly limited to reviewing the plaint's averments. Disputed questions of fact, such as res judicata, suppression of material facts, or the validity of foreign registrations, require a full-fledged trial and cannot be adjudicated summarily at the threshold.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 29, 30 and 56 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Scope of inquiry - Court must confine itself to averments in the plaint while considering applications for rejection - Disputed questions of fact and law regarding suppression of material facts, res judicata, and existence of cause of action cannot be adjudicated at the threshold without a full-fledged trial. (Paras 21.4, 21.5, 22.1, 22.6)

(B) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Section 11 - For an issue to be barred, the former suit must have been finally decided by a competent court - Instituting subsequent suits while an earlier suit is pending does not satisfy the requirement for finality of adjudication. (Paras 22.3, 23.10)

(C) Civil Procedure - Non-joinder of parties - Order I Rule 9 and Order I Rule 10(2) - Suit should not be defeated by mis-joinder or non-joinder - If a party is necessary for effective adjudication, the proper course is to direct impleadment rather than dismissing the suit. (Paras 23.5, 23.6, 23.7)

Facts of the case:
The appellant instituted multiple suits alleging infringement of a registered trademark by respondents who were allegedly affixing the mark on goods for export. The lower courts rejected these plaints under Order VII Rule 11 on grounds of lack of cause of action, res judicata, and suppression of facts, citing prior litigations in a foreign jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court observed that arguments regarding suppression of facts and res judicata require evidence and cannot be determined at the threshold. The court held that the lower court exceeded the scope of Order VII Rule 11 by considering the defense and foreign proceedings; the enquiry must be restricted to the plaints' averments.

Issues: Whether the threshold rejection of civil suits on grounds of res judicata, suppression of facts, and absence of cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 was legally sustainable without a trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an application for rejection of a plaint must be decided based on the plaint's contents alone. Disputed issues of fact such as fraud, suppression, and identity of cause of action cannot be determined summarily at the stage of threshold rejection and require a full-fledged trial to determine the merits of the dispute.

Result: Appeals allowed; orders of rejection set aside; suits restored for trial.

Table of Content
1. consolidation of related trademark infringement suits and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. parties' contentions regarding infringement, foreign trademark registration, and suit maintainability. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT :

P.Velmurugan J.

1.Since the parties, issues involved, and questions of law arising in all these appeals are substantially interconnected, all the appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These appeals have been filed by the appellant/plaintiff M/s.V.V.V &Sons Edible Oils Limited challenging the judgments and decrees passed in the connected suits, as well as the applications filed by the defendants whereby the plaints were rejected. The prayers in all these appeals are as follows:

"2.1. O.S.A.No.63 of 2019 – filed challenging the dismissal of C.S.No.726 of 2017, wherein the plaint seeking permanent injunction was rejected.

2.2. O.S.A. No.64 of 2019 – filed challenging the fair and decretal order passed in A.No.1948 of 2018, which resulted in the rejection of the plaint in C.S.No. 726 of 2017 by allowing A.No.1948 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2.3. O.S.A.No.23 of 2022 – filed challenging the judgment in C.S.No.434 of 2017, wherein the suit for injunction, accounts of profit, and damages was dismissed, and costs of Rs.1,00,000/- were imposed on the plaintiff.

2.4. O.S.A.No.139 of 2025 – filed challenging the order in C.S.No.987 of 2017, whereby the plaint seeking injunction and damages of Rs.10,00,000/- was rejected by allowing A.No.1705 of 2022.

2.5. O.S.A.No.140 of 2025 – filed challenging the judgment in C.S.No.235 of 2020, whereby the plaint seeking injunction and damages of Rs.10,00,000/- was rejected by allowing A.No.1706 of 2022."

3. The respondents herein are the defendants or applicants in the respective suits, and according to the plaintiff, their alleged roles are as follows:-

"3.1. In C.S.No.726 of 2017 (O.S.A.No.63 of 2019), the defendants are three in number:

M/s.Meenakshi Overseas LLC of USA, a foreign company that obtained registration of the mark Idhayam abroad and sells sesame oil in that market; M/s.Shivaraja Impex Company of Virudhunagar, the supplier and exporter of sesame oil from India to the USA; and M/s.Damodar Foods of Coimbatore, engaged in packing and exporting snacks and edible products to the USA.

3.2. In Application No.1948 of 2018 in C.S.No.726 of 2017 (O.S.A.No.64 of 2019), the sole respondent is M/s.Meenakshi Overseas LLC of USA, the foreign trademark holder and seller of sesame oil in the USA.

3.3. In C.S.No.434 of 2017 (O.S.A.(CAD)No.23 of 2022), the defendant is M/s.Damodar Foods of Coimbatore, an exporter of snacks to the USA.

3.4. In C.S.No.987 of 2017 (O.S.A.No.139 of 2025), the first defendant-M/s.Damodar Foods, is engaged in manufacturing, preparing, and exporting products by imitating the plaintiff’s product name and brand name Idhayam to the second defendant, M/s.RR Global Enterprises of USA.

3.5. In C.S.No.235 of 2020 (O.S.A.No.140 of 2025), the defendant is again M/s.Damodar Foods of Coimbatore, exporter of snacks to the USA."

4. In short, the appellant in all these appeals is the plaintiff, M/s.V.V.V & Sons Edible Oils Ltd, the manufacturer of sesame oil under the brand name "Idhayam". The respondents herein are the defendants/applicants in the respective suits, and for the sake of convenience they will hereinafter be referred to as:

4.1. M/s.Meenakshi Overseas LLC of USA “foreign trader”;

4.2. M/s.Shivaraja Impex Company of Virudhunagar “exporter”; and

4.3. M/s.Damodar Foods of Coimbatore “manufacturer/packer”;

4.4. M/s.R.R.Global Enterprises "importer/distributor"

5. Facts in C.S.No.726 of 2017 & A.No.1948 of 2018 (O.S.A.Nos.63 and 64 of 2019)

5.1. The appellant/plaintiff M/s.V.V.V & Sons Edible Oils Limited, a public limited company incorporated in India, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sesame oil under the registered trade mark Idhayam. The plaintiff claims that the mark Idhayam has b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top