$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 963/2025, I.A. 22352/2025, I.A. 22353/2025, I.A.

25305/2025, I.A. 25987/2025, I.A. 26091/2025, I.A. 26549/2025, I.A.

28799/2025 & I.A. 28800/2025 AB SKF .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Saif Khan and Mr. Prajjwal Kushwaha, Advocates.

versus M/S PARAMOUNT BEARING CO. & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Uttam Datt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Ms. Sonakshi Singh, Mr. Shibhit K. Srivastava, Mr. Vishal Banshal and Mr. Kumar Bhaskar, Advocates for D-2 to D-4.

Ms. Rashmi, Advocate for D-11.

Mr. Ashish Batra, Advocate for D-12.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R

% 19.11.2025 I.A. 28799/2025

1. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff seeks to withdraw this Application.

2. In view of the same, this Application is dismissed as withdrawn.

I.A. 28800/2025

3. This is an Application under Order XI Rule 1 (4) (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for seeking permission to place on record the documents filed along with this Application as filed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 beforetheDivisionBenchofthisCourtinFAO(OS)(COMM)181/2025titled asM/s.ParamountBearingandIndustrialProducts&Ors.v.ABSKF&Ors.

filed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 (“Appeal”).

4. The learned Senior Counsel for Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, on instructions, submits that Defendant No. 2 to 4 do not have any objection for taking on record the documents sought to be placed on record by the Plaintiff.

5. In view of the above statement and considering the averments made in this Application, the present Application is allowed and the documents filed along with this Application are directed to be taken on record.

6. This Application stand disposed of.

I.A. 22352/2025

7. ThisApplicationhasbeenlistedpursuanttotheOrderdated11.11.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Appeal, which reads as under:

“1. Mr. Uttam Datt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants restricted his challenge in this appeal to the orders dated 10September2025,10October2025and16October2025passedby the learned Single Judge to the extent they have directed freezing of his bank accounts.

2.He submitsthatthedirectionforfreezingof bankaccountsisinthe nature of an order under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC which is not supported with the requisite reasoning.

3. Having heard learned Counsel for both sides, with consent of parties, we dispose of this appeal by setting aside the impugned orders dated 10 September 2025, 10 October 2025 and 16 October 2025 to the extent they direct freezing of the appellants’ bank accounts.

4. However, as Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondents, apprehends that the appellants may divert their moneys if their accounts are defreezed, and it may become impossible to recover anythingfromthem,wedirectthepartiestoappearbeforethelearned Single Judge on 19 November 2025. We request the learned Single Judge to pass a fresh order on the prayer for freezing of the bank accounts.

5. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion one way or the other on the merits of the said prayer and it would be open to the learned Single Judge to take an appropriate view in that regard. We have not examined any other aspect of the matter and this order is passed without prejudice to all other contentions available to the parties.

6. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

8. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 to 4 were heard on the issue of granting ad-interim relief of freezing of the Bank Accounts of Defendant Nos. 2 to 4.

9. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff made the following submissions:

9.1 The Plaintiff, established and founded in the year 1907 in Gothenburg, Sweden is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying bearings, seals, lubrication systems, and related products and services under the Mark ‘SKF’ and its formative Marks (“SKF Marks”). The Plaintiff started its operations in India in 1923 and currently has a pan-India fo