Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not re-evaluating merits of the case.

ORDER

This Review Petition has been filed to review the order dated 11.11.2025 made in (T)OP(CR)No.1 of 2024.

2.The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submitted that while deciding the impugned order, this Court omitted to consider the Judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in C.S.(Comm).No.1569 of 2016 dated 27.08.2018 and F.A.O.(O.S.)(COMM).No.310 of 2018 dated 21.12.2018. These cases involve the same parties and the same issue. In those cases, the 1st Respondent was restrained and the Suit was decided in favour of the Petitioner regarding the very same issue involved in the present proceedings. Apart from that, the Delhi High Court directed the 1st Respondent to withdraw its copyright registration No.A-85790/2009.

3.The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Court did not consider the Petitioner’s argument that the Respondent obtained its copyright in violation of Section 45(1), as the Respondent failed to disclose the Petitioner’s prior trademark registrations, which are identical. The Court ignored the earlier orders passed by the Courts protecting the Petitioner’s trademark, including the Bombay High Court judgment dated 05.03.2013.

4.The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Court observed that the Petitioner wants to “monopolise” the coconut oil trade. This observation affected the final conclusion and is an error on the face of the record. The Petitioner clarifies that it is only protecting its lawful intellectual property rights. According to the petitioner, the Court did not consider important documents such as the Petitioner’s earlier copyrights, trademarks, favourable orders showing that the Respondent repeatedly infringed the Petitioner’s trade mark since 2002. The Court relied on the Respondent’s claim in its response to the cease and desist notice, even though the Respondent has a history of copying. According to the petitioner, the Court did not consider that the Respondent is using its copyright registration as a shield to continue infringement, which is against the purpose of the Copyright Act. The Court treated the Respondent’s reply dated 04.07.2017 as reliable evidence, even though the Respondent was set exparte.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2^nd Respondent and perused the available records.

6.The ground taken by the petitioner is that the petitioner is enjoying the order passed by the Delhi High Court in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.1569 of 2016 on 27.08.2018 and FAO(OS)(Comm.Div.)No.310 of 2018 dated 21.12.2018, wherein an identical issue between the same parties has been decided by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, which was not considered by this Court while passing the impugned order.

7.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has dealt with the limited scope of exercise of power to review:

(a) In the case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others reported in (2021) 13 SCC 1, the Hon-ble Supreme Court referring to an earlier Full Bench decision in Shivdev Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909 has noted that

“the power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be e