IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 5501 OF 2026 (IPR)

BETWEEN:

USHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF SISKAN PHARMA, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DYNASTY BUSINESS PARK, 4TH FLOOR, 'A' WING, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, CHAKALA ANDERI EAST, MUMBAI - 400 059.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANTHA J, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. SANWISH PHARMA LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCORPORATED UNDER THE LLP ACT, 2008, HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AT NO.3021, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH PHASE, VHBCS LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085, REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. YARRAPUREDDY SREENIVASULU REDDY …RESPONDENT (BY MS. DIANA LAURENCE PAUL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CASE IN COM.A.A.NO.498/2025, ON THE FILE OF HONBLE LXXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-89), BENGALURU AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION DATED 15.12.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED ON THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 15.12.2025, passed by the LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil And Sessions Judge (CCH-89), Bengaluru, in Com.A.A.No.498/2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, the learned Commercial Court allowed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 filed by the respondent/plaintiff and the petitioner/respondent has been restrained from using products ‘DyraANC’ or any other similar trademark to ‘DyraANC’.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent submits that this Court has the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to maintain a challenge on these proceedings against the Impugned Order. In this behalf, he seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Steel And Power Limited And Another vs. Bansal Infra Projects Private Limited And Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1041

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent submits that the Supreme Court has held that the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘A & C Act’) including where an

interim protection has been granted. Thus, he submits that this Court should exercise jurisdiction in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on the other hand contends, that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a petition under Section 9 of A & C Act. During the pendency of this petition, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has filed which has been allowed and a temporary injunction has been granted. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner/respondent had executed an assignment deed with the respondent/plaintiff and wherein the adoption and use of a trademark "DyraOne" and "DyraANC", the terms of which have been violated. She further submits that the assignment deed contains an arbitration clause and thus this petition was filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent in addition states that in terms of the requirements of Section 9 of the A & C Act, the arbitral notice commencing proceedings under the A & C Act, has been sent to the petitioner/respondent on 17.12.2025. She further contends that no response has been received to the notice as yet.

6. No doubt this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in circumstances which may include arbitral petitions. However, such jurisdiction to be exercised only in exceptional cases. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner/respo