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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. M/S. MAK ENTERPRISES & ANR.
CS(COMM) 1418/2025



##PAGE1##

$~40

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(COMM) 1418/2025 & I.As. 32662-66/2025

AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS. .....Plaintiffs

Through: Mr. Pravind Anand, Ms. Vaishali

Mittal, Mr. Siddhant Chamola and

Mr. Jitesh Prakash Gupta, Advocates

versus

GOBIND MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants

Through: None

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 23.12.2025

I.A. 32666/2025 (for exemption)

1. This application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, has been filed seeking exemption from filing clearer copies of dim

documents.

2. Subject to the Plaintiffs filing clearer copies of dim documents within

a period of thirty [30] days from today, exemption is granted for the present,

failing which the Plaintiffs will not be entitled to rely upon these documents.

3. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

I.A. 32665/2025 (Under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC)

4. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under

Order XI Rule 1(4) of CPC [as amended by the Commercial Courts Act,

2015] read with Section 151 CPC, within thirty [30] days.

5. The Plaintiffs, if they wish to file additional documents will file the

same within thirty [30] days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the

provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court

CS(COMM) 1418/2025 Page 1 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 22:25:23

##PAGE2##

(Original Side) Rules, 2018 [‘DHC Rules’].

6. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

7. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

I.A. 32664/2025 (Under Order XI Rule 2 CPC)

8. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XI

Rule 2 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section

151 CPC seeking leave to the Plaintiffs to serve the Defendants with the

enclosed interrogatories.

9. Issue Notice to the Defendants. Reply, if any be filed within four [4]

weeks.

10. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 17.02.2026.

11. List before Court on 20.05.2026.

I.A. 32663/2025 (seeking exemption from institution pre-litigation

mediation)

12. This is an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts

Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the Plaintiffs seeking

exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.

13. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent

interim relief and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Yamini

Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi1, exemption from the requirement of pre-

institution mediation is granted to the Plaintiffs.

14. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) 1418/2025

15. The present suit has been instituted seeking permanent injunction

restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiffs’ well-known

CS(COMM) 1418/2025 Page 2 of 13

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 22:25:23

##PAGE3##

trademark ‘VOLVO’, associated insignias, and trade dress particularly in

relation to the Defendants’ acts of manufacturing/fabrication of ‘Volvo’

look-alike buses, and providing inter-city or intra-city passenger services of

buses, which use an insignia/motif/logo/ on the front grille that is identical

with, or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ registered grille-slash

trademarks.

16. Mr. Pravind Anand, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs state that the

Defendants have been duly served with an advance copy on the e-mail

addresses listed in the memo of parties.

17. This Court finds that there is no cause of action for the Plaintiffs to

maintain these proceedings against Defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 3 is a

travel agent running its services in Assam and it merely provides bus

booking services for Defendant

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