* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order reserved on : 07.04.2026 Order delivered on: 15.04.2026 + CS(COMM) 268/2021 PEPSICO INC. & ANR. .....Plaintiffs versus PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED .....Defendant Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Plaintiff : Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Ms.

Avni Sharma, Ms. Aparna Singh, Mr. Deepak Gogia, Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal and Ms. Shivangi Kohli, Advocates.

For the Defendant : Mr. C.M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankit Arvind, Mr. Shashwat Rakshit and Ms. Nidhi Pathak, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J:

I.A. 524/2026 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC)

1. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as “CPC”) filed on behalf of the plaintiffs seeking a direction to hold the defendant as also its principal officers guilty of wilfully violating and disobeying the order dated 18.09.2023, passed by this Court.

2. In the suit, the plaintiffs have sought a decree of permanent injunction, restraining infringement of registered trademark/tagline “For The Bold”, passing off, dilution, delivery up, damages and costs, against the defendant.

3. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel in order to set out the background, refers to the orders dated 09.01.2026, 06.02.2026 and 16.02.2026 passed by this Court based whereon the defendant has filed two affidavits dated 22.01.2026 and 16.02.2026.

4. He would contend that a plain reading of both the affidavits do not leave any doubt that the defendant has knowingly, wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions contained in sub-para (vii) of Para 139 of the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by this Court.

5. He would contend that this Court had restrained the defendant from (i) altering the label on its “B Fizz” beverage bottle/can without prior approval of the Court; (ii) from using the tagline “For The Bold” as the predominant part of any advertising campaign for its “B Fizz” beverage; (iii) airing or continuing the Facebook advertisements extracted in para 13 of the order dated 18.09.2023; and (iv) if such advertisements are continuing, the same to be immediately taken down and discontinued.

6. That apart, learned senior counsel stated that this Court had also directed the defendant to place on record the account statements every two months from the time the use of the label containing ‘For The Bold’ commenced, which too has been, with impunity, not complied with by the defendant.

7. By referring to para 8 of the application, learned senior counsel would contend that the defendant has wilfully, deliberately and contumaciously violated the aforesaid directions. In that, in the X/Twitter, and the Instagram account of the defendant, the defendant has continued to violate the aforesaid directions. To explain it better, the screenshots are extracted hereunder:

8. In the aforesaid context, he would refer to the affidavit of one Mr.

Bhalchandra Shripad Virkar dated 22.01.2026, who has categorically admitted that the advertisements/social media posts carrying the tagline “FOR THE BOLD” were taken down from its social media handles as soon as they came to know about it through the present application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, CPC. The deponent had also admitted to filing the record of certified sales revenue of the “B Fizz” beverage of the defendant along with the said affidavit, which too is a clear admission of the violation of the directions contained in order dated 18.09.2023.

9. He would further contend that, since this Court was not satisfied with the affidavit, the defendant filed yet another affidavit dated 16.02.2026. Learned senior counsel would emphasize that the second affidavit is far more intriguing, inasmuch as, while in the first affidavit, the defendant admitted that the social media posts were its own, in the second affidavit, it falsely claimed that the posts complained of were on third-party social media