Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
KANHIAYA LAL AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
SUBHASH CHANDER AND ANR – Respondent
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 339/2022 & I.A. 14209/2022 & I.A. 6905/2025 | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 362/2022 & I.A. 13902/2022 & I.A. 6917/2025 | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 372/2022 & I.A. 13899/2022 & I.A. 6907/2025 | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 385/2022 & I.A. 13900/2022 & I.A. 6906/2025 | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 394/2022 & I.A. 13901/2022 & I.A. 6908/2025 | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 413/2022 & I.A. 21833/2025 & I.A. 21834/2025 | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 430/2022 & I.A. 13903/2022 & I.A. 6916/2025 | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 520/2022 & I.A. 13811/2022 & I.A. 6870/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms. Ishita Suri, Ms Deeksha Gulati, Mr. Sambhav Rana, Mr. Amit Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Surya Prakash Nigam, Ms Meeta Nigam, Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Kunal Raj, Ms. Charu Khandelwal, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Mr. Mrinmayee Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan

Legal heirs must be allowed to join proceedings under lineage and family settlements, despite delays, if justified by unforeseen circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections applicable to disputes regarding trademark registration and successor rights. - Legal heirs' application to implead underscores their right to pursue the case due to existing family settlement and will. - Key legal principles highlight the justice-oriented approach courts must adopt regarding abatement of suits post-death. - The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings despite delays due to personal tragedies. (Paras 12 to 21)

(B) Family Settlement - Independent rights conferred upon descendants for trademark use and registration under the family's historical business arrangement. - The interpretation of family settlements requires liberal construction to avoid denying a party's right to be heard on substantive grounds. (Paras 10 to 16)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought to implead legal heirs following the deaths of petitioner Kanhaiya Lal and his son Anil Kumar, basing claims on a registered will and prior family agreements regarding their trademark and business rights. The delay in seeking impleadment was attributed to administrative responsibilities after the deaths, which included obtaining necessary documentation and managing the estates. The earlier registrations of trademarks by the respondent led to disputes, necessitating rectification actions.

Findings of Court:
Abatement of petition noted for Petitioner No. 2, yet subsequent actions to implead legal heirs were granted under specific provisions of CPC, allowing the case to proceed. Legal approach favored a substantive resolution over procedural technicalities, reinforcing the legal heirs’ position.

Issues: Whether the petition had abated due to death, and if the delay in impleading legal heirs was sufficient for consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay attributed to unforeseen circumstances was deemed justifiable, allowing continued litigation despite prior abatement. Failure to oppose the new petitioners’ rights under family agreements highlighted judicial emphasis on equal opportunity for litigants.

Result: Applications allowed with conditions imposed.

Table of Content
1. nature of trademark and family claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 7)
2. arguments regarding delay and impleadment. (Para 8 , 9)
3. observations on legal heirs' rights and delays. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. court's decision on abatement and delay justification. (Para 12 , 21)
5. final orders on applications for impleadment. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

C.O. (COMM. IPD-TM) 339/2022

I.A. 14209/2022 (under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC, 1908, to implead the Legal Heirs of Applicant/Petitioner No.1)

I.A. 6905/2025 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, for condonation in filing I.A. 14209/2022)

1. The Petitioners are the Legal heirs of Lt. Panchhi Lal alias Lt. Pancham Lal. Petitioner No.1/Kanhaiya Lal (since deceased) and Respondent No.1 No.1/Subhash Chander are the sons of Lt. Panchhi Lal.

Petitioner No. 2/Anil Kumar (since deceased) and Petitioner 3/Sunil Kumar are grandsons of Lt. Panchhi Lal and sons of Petitioner No. 1/ Kanhaiya Lal, respectively.

Genesis of the dispute

2. The case set up by the Petitioners is as follows:

2.1. In 1952, Lt. Panchhi Lal established the business of manufacturing Petha and Dalmoth at Agra as a sole proprietorship, which was subsequently converted into a partnership under the name PANCHHI PETHA STORE, with himself and his two sons1 as partners.

2.2. The partners applied for registration of the trademark PANCHHI KA PETHA AUR DALMOTH on 30.07.1971 bearing no.273943 in class 30, which was thereafter granted.

2.3. Shri. Panchhi Lal passed away on 26.03.1975. Thereafter, a family settlement was executed on 23.06.1982 between Petitioner No.1/Shri Kanhaiya Lal, as Karta of his HUF [including his sons Petitioner No.2/Shri Anil Kumar (since deceased), and Petitioner No.3/Shri Sunil Kumar, who survives], and Respondent No.1/Shri Subhash Chander, as Karta of his HUF.

2.4. As per the family settlement, Petitioner No.1 and his HUF would carry on the business of manufacturing Petha, Dalmoth, etc., at shop No. 1/44, Upadhyay Market, Hari Parwat, Agra; whereas Respondent No.1 and his HUF would carry on the business from Shops No. 15/390 and 15/391, Noori Darwaja, Agra.

2.5. The family settlement recorded that the businesses would be carried out under the trade mark/trade name PANCHHI, whilst maintaining a distance of 1 (one) kilometre between the aforesaid shops. It further stipulated that only one shop may be established by the parties, outside the said radius of 1 kilometre.

2.6. The list of shops opened by the Petitioners has been given in paragraph ‘K’ of the petition, and the sales turnover has been given in paragraph ‘M’ of the petition.

2.7. It is stated that the parties mutually co-existed while carrying out their businesses peacefully.

However, the issue arose when the Petitioners applied for the registration of the mark PANCHHI bearing no. 14117647 in class 30. It is stated that the Respondent No.1 filed a notice of opposition against the said TM application. From the perusal of the Notice of Opposition and the evidence filed under Rule 50 by Respondent No. 1, the Petitioners came to know that Respondent No. 1 had clandestinely obtained multiple trademark registrations of the mark PANCHHI in various classes, to the exclusion of the Petitioners. This prompted the Petitioners to file a rectification petition challenging the said registrations on 16.06.2013 before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’), which was subsequently transferred to this Court in March 2022, following the abolition of the IPAB.

3. The subject matter of the captioned applications is impleadment of the legal heirs of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2. It is a matter of record that Petitioner No.1/Kanhaiya Lal expired on 19.05.2021 and that Petitioner No.2/Anil Kumar expired on 21.11.2017.

3.1. I.A. No. 14209/2022 has been filed seeking leave to implead the Legal Heirs of Petitioner No.1/Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal and Petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document