1. Appeal against ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit between pharmaceutical companies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 167/2026 | CM APPL. 43226/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amar Shankar
For the Respondents: Sachin Gupta, Rajat Jain, Rohit Pradhan, Prashansa, Mahima
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amar Shankar
For the Respondents: Sachin Gupta, Rajat Jain, Rohit Pradhan, Prashansa, Mahima
A party seeking ex-parte discretionary relief must act with uberrima fides. Wilful suppression of material facts to mislead the court regarding the cause of action or to create a false sense of urgency justifies vacating the injunction and dismissing the interim application.
Headnote:(A) Ex-parte Injunctions - Suppression of Material Facts - A party seeking an ex-parte interim order is under an obligation of uberrima fides to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts. Wilful suppression of prior notices and objections to mislead the court regarding the date of knowledge of the cause of action disentitles the party to discretionary relief. (Para 30, 33, 43)
(B) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Statement of Truth - Statutory obligation cast upon every plaintiff in a commercial suit to verify pleadings via the Statement of Truth, declaring no concealment of material facts or documents. Failure to disclose material facts amounts to misleading the court. (Para 22, 32)
(C) Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC - Procedural Compliance - The court is required to record reasons for passing an ex-parte interim injunction without notice. Non-compliance with this procedural requirement renders the impugned order unsustainable. (Para 37)
Issues: Whether the ex-parte ad-interim injunction should be vacated due to the Respondent's wilful suppression of material facts regarding the date of knowledge of the trademark adoption.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued suppression of material facts; Respondent claimed oversight and that non-disclosure was irrelevant. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. Court found wilful suppression of prior notice and objections in the plaint, misleading the court about the date of cause of action. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 43 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 55 )
4. A party seeking ex-parte relief must make full disclosure; suppression of material facts warrants dismissal of the application for injunction. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 56 )
5. Appeal allowed; ex-parte injunction vacated; interim injunction application dismissed; costs imposed for suppression. (Para 57 , 58 )
6. What is the consequence of suppressing material facts in an ex-parte application for an interim injunction in a commercial suit?
The court may vacate the ex-parte order, dismiss the interim application, and deny the plaintiff any discretionary relief for approaching with unclean hands. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 56 )
7. What is the duty of a plaintiff regarding disclosure when seeking an ex-parte injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC?
The plaintiff must make the fullest possible disclosure of all material facts. Non-compliance renders the ex-parte order unsustainable and may lead to dismissal of the application. (Para 34 , 37 , 40 , 42 )
8. Is the filing of documents in an index, without pleading the same in the plaint, considered a disclosure under the Statement of Truth?
No, tucking away documents under an obscure heading in an index does not satisfy the duty of disclosure mandated by the Statement of Truth in commercial suits. (Para 31 , 32 )
9. Can a repeated pattern of suppression by the same counsel in multiple suits affect the court's assessment of a claim of inadvertence?
Yes, a pattern of wilful suppression across multiple suits can lead the court to reject an explanation of oversight as deliberate, emboldening interference with the judicial process. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 )
10. How does the fact that a defendant has already commenced commerce affect the grant of an ex-parte injunction?
The court may consider issuing a short notice to the defendant before granting an interim injunction, rather than proceeding ex-parte, when the defendant has already commenced business. (Para 35 , 37 )
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [‘Act of 2015’], read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], assailing the ex-parte order dated 20.05.2026 [‘impugned order’] passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(COMM) 535/2026.
2. The present appeal pertains to a dispute inter-se two pharmaceutical companies, Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd./Appellant No. 1 and Celagenex Research (India) Pvt./Respondent, both engaged in the business of selling nutraceutical products.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Appellant No. 2/Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar joined the Respondent Ltd. on 09.10.2019 as Founding Director, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, holding 99% of the founding shareholding.
4. The Respondent manufactures and sells its nutraceutical product under the registered trademark ‘NUREWIRE’ bearing trademark no. 4525594 in Class 5, which was registered on 09.06.2020 [‘Respondent’s mark’].
5. It is stated that Appellant No. 2 personally signed the power of attorney for the ‘NUREWIRE’ trademark application and built the company as a founding promoter before resigning on 09.10.2024 after five years of service.
6. Following the resignation of Appellant No. 2, Appellant No. 1 was incorporated on 12.12.2024 [initially as Taibachem Healthcare Private Limited] and was subsequently renamed Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. on 30.12.2025. The Appellants thereafter applied for registration of the trademark ‘RewireX’ [‘impugned mark’] bearing trademark no. 6892520 in Class 5 on 06.03.2025, pursuant to which products bearing the said mark were commercially launched in March 2026.
7. It is stated that, upon learning of the Appellants’ launch of products bearing the impugned mark in May, 2026, the Respondent instituted the underlying suit. However, it is a matter of record that the Respondent sent a cease-and-desist notice dated 29.10.2025 [‘Notice dated 29.10.2025’] to the Appellants, calling upon the Appellants to discontinue the use of the impugned mark. Thereafter, the Respondent also filed an objection dated 27.01.2026 to the said trademark application no. 6892520 before the Registrar of Trade Marks [‘Objections dated 27.01.2026’]. The existence of the said Notice and Objections was not disclosed or pleaded in the plaint by the Respondent in the underlying suit.
8. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner on the ground that the manner in which the Appellants had adopted the impugned mark ‘RewireX’ did not inspire confidence.
9. In these facts, the Appellants have instituted the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS
10. Mr. Amar Shankar, learned counsel for the Appellants, stated that in the facts of this case, no ex-parte ad-interim order ought to have been passed by the learned Single Judge, and a notice for hearing ought to have been issued to the Appellants before granting an interim injunction.
10.1. He stated that Respondent was aware of the adoption of the impugned mark by the Appellants at least since 29.10.2025, when it issued the Notice dated 29.10.2025. He stated that the narrative in the plaint that the Respondent learnt about Appellants’ adoption of the impugned mark in May, 2026 is false and was intended to create a false sense of urgency to persuade the learned Single Judge to pass an ex-parte ad-interim order, as well as seek appointment of a Local Commissioner.
10.2. He stated that since the Respondent was aware of the adoption of the impugned mark by the Appellants since 29.10.2025, this was an ideal case where, if disclosed, the learned Single Judge would not have granted exemption to the Respondent from undergoing pre-litigation mediation as per the mandate of Section 12A of the Act of 2015 or granted an exemption from advance notice as per the practice directions.
10.3. He stated that as per the mandate of Order
