ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)

Shri H. Karthik Seshadri takes notice on behalf of respondent.

2. The appeal impugns an order dated 20.1.2025 passed by the Commercial Court, Coimbatore, at the ad-interim stage, in a suit filed by respondent (original plaintiff) against appellants (original defendants), where the main relief sought was permanent injunction restraining appellants from using the registered trademark or the deceptively similar trademark as that of the respondent company. Respondent has also sought reliefs of rendition of accounts, damages, etc.

3. Respondent functions in the name of “Anugraha Valve Castings Limited” and allegedly holds a registered trademark in its name. Respondent is in the business of making and selling castings in the registered name of respondent company. It is respondent’s case that appellants are using deceptively similar trademark unauthorisedly and are also in a business similar to that of respondent. Respondent, therefore, sought temporary injunction restraining appellants from selling its products under the mark “Anugraha Castings”.

4. By the impugned order, the trial court has proceeded beyond the relief sought and has granted an order restraining appellants from manufacturing goods or rendering services using the word “Anugraha”.

5. According to appellants, the trade name of first appellant is “Anugraha Castings” and has been in use since 2018. The GST registration certificate, the pan card, the electricity connection, quality approvals, Engineering Export Promotion Council of India (EEPC Certificate), Licence under Factory Act and all other mandatory and legal certifications and approvals have been issued only in the name of “Anugraha Castings”. Moreover, in view of the operation of the ex parte interim injunction, the entire business of appellants has come to a grinding halt. Appellants state that it would take quite some time before the interim order may be vacated and great and irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to them.

6. Though the impugned order was to be effective only till 3.2.2025, it being an ex parte order, in our view, is an extremely harsh order, where even no case is made out for an ex parte order.

7. We are not, at this point, going into the merits of the matter, but only considering whether such an ex parte order without notice to appellants (original defendants) could have been passed, particularly when the cause of action itself has arisen, according to respondent, way back in June, 2024 and respondent was aware that appellants have been carrying on business in the name of “Anugraha” even before September, 2021.

8. In our view, there was absolutely no need to pass harsh ex parte order, because it is respondent’s case in paragraph 14 that appellant No.1, Anugraha Castings, is an entity started by appellant No.2 and it appears that this entity itself was started to defraud members of the trade and public in the year 2018. Thereafter, it is stated in paragraph 17 that respondent issued a caution notice dated 27.09.2021 to appellant Nos.1 and 2 and the same was delivered on 29.09.2021. In paragraph 19, details of the documents relating to defendants, who are appellants herein, have been referred, one of which is the purchase order dated 22.11.2021. In paragraph 32, it is averred that appellants have been using the trademark and trade name. It is stated in paragraph 33 that the cause of action is the knowledge derived through emails dated 15.06.2024. There is absolutely no requirement to pass such harsh ex parte order without notice to appellants.

9. There shall be a stay of the impugned order dated 20.01.2025.

10. We only hope that courts exercise restraint while passing such orders. An ex parte order can have disastrous consequences and should be passed only in case of real emergency and there are averments to that effect in the plaint or affidavit and after adverting to those averments. It should not be done in a routine man