$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19.12.2024 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 294/2024 ANIL SINGLA ALIAS ANIL KUMAR & ORS .....Appellants Through: Ms.Shobha Gupta, Ms.Manasvi Negi, Ms.Simranjeet Kaur, Ms.Akshita Mishra, Advs.

versus M/S KWALITY FOOD PRODUCTS .....Respondent Through: Mr.Aditya Gupta, Ms.Aishwarya Kaur, Ms.Chhavi Tokas, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 74608/2024

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Orders dated 11.07.2024 and 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (COMM) 580/2024 titled M/s Kwality Food Products v.

Anil Singla @ Anil Kumar & Ors

2. By this application, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of

45 days in filing the appeal.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 74607/2024 (Exemption)

5. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Signature Not Verified FAO(OS(COMM)294/2024 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed CAV 624/2024

6. As the learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance, the Caveat stands discharged.

FAO(OS) (COMM) 294/2024 & CM APPL. 74606/2024

7. This appeal has been filed challenging the Orders dated 18.07.2024 and 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (COMM) 580/2024 M/s Kwality Food Products v. Anil Singla & Ors

8. By the Order dated 18.07.2024, the learned Single Judge has passed the following ex-parte ad interim order against the appellant herein:

“32. Accordingly, it is directed that the defendants, their proprietors, partners, affiliates, franchises, officers, servants, agents, distributors, representatives and anyone acting for or on behalf of the defendants, are restrained from using the „Ruchi‟ mark or any deceptively similar mark thereto including but not limited to „Ruchi‟, „SHREERUCHI‟, in any manner of any goods or services, including without limitation on product packaging, signages, stationery, advertising material, websites, domain names, social media leading to confusion as to origin or association, amounting to passing off or as to dilute the plaintiff‟s trademark.”

9. We are informed that while the arguments on the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’) were being heard by the learned Single Judge, the respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC, complaining that despite the order Signature Not Verified FAO(OS(COMM)294/2024 Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed of injunction, the appellant was blatantly violating the same by selling its goods under the impugned trademark. The respondent further contended that the appellant had also relied upon forged and fabricated invoices before the Court.

10. The learned Single Judge compared the invoices filed by the appellant before the Court with the ones that were produced before the GST Department by the appellants, and made the following observations:

“3. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the invoices filed along with the present application, which show the side by side comparison of the forged invoices with the invoices as issued by the GST Department. By comparing the said invoices, it is submitted that the original invoices do not contain the name of the mark Ruchi, while the forged invoices wrongly show the mark Ruchi, in order to portray a false case of prior user by the defendants.

4. Prima facie, looking at the documents on record, this Court is of the view that the defendants have tried to overreach the process before this Court. The conduct of the defendants in placing reliance upon forged and fabricated documents before this Court, is a very serious matter.”

11. These invoices have not been filed before this Court. This is a clear case of concealment of vital documents in the appeal. This appeal is liable to be dismissed only on the grounds of concealment.

12. The