* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order reserved on: 25.03.2026 Order delivered on: 02.04.2026 + CS(COMM) 60/2020, I.A. 5528/2020, I.A. 5751/2020, CCP(O)

4/2021, REVIEW PET.89/2021, I.A. 2866/2021, I.A. 2875/2021 &

I.A. 2884/2021 MITTAL ELECTRONICS .....Plaintiff versus SUJATA HOME APPLIANCES (P) LTD. & ORS. ....Defendants Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Plaintiff : Mr. Manish Biala and Mr. Devesh Ratan, Advocates.

For the Defendants : Mr. Neeraj Grover, Ms. Meenakshi Ogra, Mr.

Tarun Khurana, Mr. Samrat S. Kang, Mr. Vishnu Gambhir, Ms. Chhavi Pande and Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

I.A. 7185/2026 (By D1 for clarification of Order dated 09.09.2020)

1. Present application has been filed on behalf of defendant no.1 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1098 (‘CPC’) seeking clarification of the order dated 09.09.2020.

2. Mr. Neeraj Grover, learned counsel appearing for the defendant took this Court through the orders dated 07.02.2020 and 09.09.2020 to submit that the order dated 07.02.2020 was an ex-parte interim order passed in favor of the plaintiff, while the order dated 09.09.2020 was passed after this Court heard arguments on the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 and Order XXXIX Rule 4, CPC. He states that by way of the present application, the defendant seeks clarification of the order dated 09.09.2020 to the extent that the defendant be permitted to use the mark ‘SUJATA’ as its trade/corporate name only to the extent that the permission to use ‘SUJATA’ as trademark was permitted in respect of goods like RO systems, water purifiers and water filters. In that, he states that the defendant be permitted to use the name - Sujata Home Appliances only for branding the products like ROs, water purifiers and water filters.

3. In order to substantiate his contentions, learned counsel referred to para 61 of the order dated 09.09.2020 to state that the reference to para 36 of the plaint, which is the prayer clause of the interim injunction application of the plaintiff, in the said order was only in respect of the items/products which preceded the reference to the said para 36. In other words, he contended that while modifying the order dated 07.02.2020, this Court observed, “The applications are disposed of granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants in terms of prayer in para 36 of I.A.No.1751/2020 except for water filters, water purifiers and RO Systems, which the defendants can continue to manufacture and sell under the mark ‘SUJATA’”, which can only mean that for the specified items, the defendants can also use the mark ‘SUJATA’ as a trade/corporate name. According to him, the exception carved out would inhere in the defendant the right to use the mark ‘SUJATA’ as its trade name or corporate name.

4. Learned counsel also contended that the aforesaid contention is clearer while reading para 10 and 11 of the order dated 07.02.2020. He stated that while in para 10 of the said order, this Court had granted ex-

parte injunction in respect of various products including that of the plaintiffs, it was restricted only to the mark ‘SUJATA’ as appearing on the said products and not to the defendant using the mark ‘SUJATA’ as its trade or corporate name. According to him, this becomes more manifest from the reading of para 11. This Court in para 11 had restrained the defendants from using the domain names www.sujatahomeappliances.com and www.sujataro.com. From the above, learned counsel would have the Court infer that restraint from use of the mark ‘SUJATA’ as trade or corporate name has not been clearly specified and rather, such restraint is conspicuous by its absence. Thus, as per learned counsel, what has not been clearly restrained by specification, cannot be deemed to have been so prohibited.

5. Even otherwise, Mr. Grover would contend that even now, this Court can clarify that the defendants can use the mark