Suppression Relevant Only to Ex-Parte Urgency, Not Merits, Doesn't Automatically Warrant Vacating Injunction: Bombay High Court - 2025-08-26

Law, Judgments & Legal Insights.

Bombay High Court Reinstates Injunction in Atyati vs. Cognizant Logo Dispute, Citing Distinction in 'Suppression of Facts'

Mumbai: In a significant ruling on the principles governing interim injunctions, the Bombay High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order that had vacated an ad-interim injunction granted to Atyati Technologies in a copyright infringement suit against Cognizant Technology Solutions. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne, held that an alleged suppression of fact relevant only to the urgency for an ex-parte order, and not to the merits of the case, does not automatically warrant the discontinuation of an injunction.

The Court restored the initial ex-parte order from March 19, 2024, restraining Cognizant from using a logo that Atyati claims infringes on its copyrighted "ATYATI" device mark.

---

Background of the Dispute

Atyati Technologies Private Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Cognizant, alleging infringement of its copyright and registered trademarks, and passing off. Atyati claimed that Cognizant had adopted a deceptively similar logo.

On March 19, 2024, a Single Judge of the High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in Atyati's favor. This decision was largely based on Atyati's representation that it had only become aware of Cognizant's use of the impugned mark in October 2023, thus establishing urgency.

However, Cognizant later argued that Atyati had suppressed material facts. It contended that Atyati was aware of Cognizant's use of the logo since 2022, a fact seemingly admitted in Atyati's own cease-and-desist notice. Persuaded by this argument, the Single Judge, by an order dated June 13, 2024, discontinued the injunction, holding that had the court been aware of the timeline, it would not have granted relief without first notifying Cognizant. Atyati challenged this discontinuation in the present appeal.

---

Arguments Before the Division Bench

Atyati Technologies (Appellant) , represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Ravi Kadam, argued: -

The Single Judge erred in accusing Atyati of making a false statement. The cease-and-desist notice merely reflected information from a third-party source about Cognizant's use since 2022; Atyati's knowledge of this use was indeed acquired only in October 2023. -

Cognizant's own reply to the notice described its logo adoption as "most recently," reinforcing Atyati's belief of recent use. -

The alleged suppression pertained only to the question of dispensing with notice to the defendant (an inquiry into urgency), not to the three-fold test for an injunction (a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm). Therefore, vacating the injunction was a disproportionate response.

Cognizant Technology Solutions (Respondent) , represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, countered: -

Atyati had made a knowingly false statement in its plaint about when it acquired knowledge, which amounted to a gross suppression of material facts. -

Had the court known Cognizant was using the mark since 2022, it would have followed the mandate of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code and issued a notice instead of granting an urgent ex-parte order. -

A party seeking an equitable remedy like an injunction must approach the court with clean hands, and any suppression justifies the withdrawal of relief.

---

Court's Analysis: Two Inquiries for Ex-Parte Injunctions

The Division Bench, in its detailed judgment authored by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, drew a crucial distinction between two types of inquiries a court undertakes when granting an ex-parte injunction.

1. Inquiry No. 1: Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
2. Inquiry No. 2: Whether the circumstances warrant dispensing with the mandatory notice to the defendant, as provided under Order XXXIX Rule 3.

The Court observed that Cognizant's allegation of suppression was relevant only to 'Inquiry No. 2'. It did not challenge the merits or the prima facie case established by Atyati in 'Inquiry No. 1'.

The judgment noted:

"If the suppression is of material particular on which the order of injunction is premised (i.e. the one, if disclosed, would have affected the Court’s mind while conducting Inquiry No. 1), the injunction needs to be vacated/discontinued. However, if the allegation of suppression is relevant only to Inquiry No. 2, it has bearing on only the aspect of need for issuance of notice to Defendants."

The Court reasoned that if the alleged suppressed fact had been disclosed, the likely outcome would have been the issuance of a notice to Cognizant, not a denial of the injunction on merits. The bench held that for suppression related only to the urgency aspect, the "degree of suppression needs to be comparatively higher" to justify vacating an already granted injunction.

The bench found the allegation of suppression in this case to be "debatable" and not of such a high degree as to warrant the harsh consequence of discontinuation. It also noted that Cognizant had not filed a formal application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 to vacate the injunction but had opposed its continuation through a limited affidavit.

---

Final Decision and Implications

The Bombay High Court allowed Atyati's appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's order of June 13, 2024. Consequently, the initial ad-interim injunction granted on March 19, 2024, was restored and will remain in effect pending the final decision on the interim application.

The Court has requested the Single Judge to expedite the final hearing of the Interim Application. This ruling clarifies that while courts demand full and frank disclosure, the consequence of non-disclosure must be proportionate to its impact on the court's decision-making process.