Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 14501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
DR. ARVIND KUMAR GAUTAM – Appellant
Versus
RITA RIKH – Respondent
RFA(COMM) 276/2026 | CM APPL. 27796-27799/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Tewari, Abhimanyu Lall, Kumar Abhishek Bhushan
For the Respondents: None
The court held that fraudulent misrepresentation of identity to pass off services under a deceased professional's trade name justifies a permanent injunction and nominal damages as a deterrent, regardless of quantified actual loss.
Headnote:(A) Procedural Law - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Application for condonation of delay in re-filing must contain material particulars and a satisfactory explanation; absence of such cause warrants rejection of the application. (Para 4)
(B) Intellectual Property Rights - Passing Off - Misrepresentation of Identity - Using a deceased professional's trade name and posing as that person on digital platforms to mislead the public constitutes passing off and fraudulent representation. (Para 16, 18)
(C) Damages - Quantum - Nominal Damages - In cases of dishonest and knowing infringement or passing off, the court may award nominal damages as a necessary deterrent, even in the absence of quantified actual loss. (Para 22)
Issues: Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the award of damages was justified despite the absence of evidence of actual loss.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in re-filing requires a showing of sufficient cause. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. challenge to a decree of permanent injunction and damages based on passing off. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. fraudulent misrepresentation of identity to pass off services constitutes a valid ground for injunction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. nominal damages are justifiable as a deterrent against dishonest use of a trade name. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. dismissal of meritless appeal with exemplary costs. (Para 23 , 24) |
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
(ORAL)
CM APPL. 27797/2026 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 27799/2026 (for seeking condonation)
3. This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 64 days in re-filing the appeal.
4. This Court has perused the contents of the present application. The application is bereft of material particulars and fails to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the delay in re-filing. In the absence of any ‘sufficient cause’ being shown, as required in terms of the principles laid down in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 233, the relief for condonation is therefore rejected.
5. The application is dismissed and consequentially the appeal is time barred.
RFA(COMM) 276/2026
6. Notwithstanding the fact that the appeal is time barred, we are however proceeding to examine the merits of the appeal to avoid any delay in the implementation of the decree.
7. The present appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2025 passed in CS (COMM) No. 472/2023, by the Ld. District Judge (Commercial Court-01) Dwarka, whereby the Respondent’s suit for permanent injunction for restraining the Appellant from passing off the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’ has been decreed, against the Appellant along with directions of delivery up and damages to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh.
8. The Respondent claimed goodwill in the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’ on the basis of inheritance from her late father late Dr. Vijai Rikh wo ran a medical clinic at the premises bearing no. C-2B/69B, Janakpuri, New Delhi (‘Premises’) under the said trade name. Respondent contended that the Appellant, who was inducted as a tenant in the Premises was illegally and unauthorizedly carrying on business under the trade name Dr. Rikh’s Clinic and thereby misrepresenting to the general public that he was in any manner associated with late Dr. Vijai Rikh.
9. The Appellant has contended that he was a lawful tenant in the said Premises inducted under a registered lease deed dated 17.03.2022 and was independently carrying on his medical practice in his own professional capacity.
10. The Appellant on 14.05.2024 undertook before the Trial Court to not use the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’ and was injuncted in terms of the said statement.
11. Learned District Judge has post-trial decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent and granted the relief of permanent injunction, delivery up and damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh.
12. In the grounds of appeal, the Appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the Respondent failed to prove the essential ingredients of passing off, namely goodwill, misrepresentation and likelihood of damage. It is further contended that no evidence of actual loss or quantified damages was led, yet the learned Trial Court awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on equitable considerations.
12.1. It is also the Appellant’s case that the learned Trial Court failed to consider material admissions made by the Respondent in cross-examination, including that she was not running any clinic, had no licence to operate a medical establishment in India, and had no knowledge of the accoun
