Delhi High Court
Star Sintered Products Ltd vs 1. Mr Karan Bhutani Trading As M/S Kmsp … on 31 July, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.07.2025
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63/2024, I.A. 29742/2024, I.A.
29743/2024, I.A. 29744/2024, I.A. 29745/2024 & I.A. 29746/2024
STAR SINTERED PRODUCTS LTD .....Petitioner
versus
MR KARAN BHUTANI TRADING AS M/S KMSP INDUSTRIES
& ANR. .....Respondents
+ CS(COMM) 97/2022, I.A. 12853/2022 & I.A. 12858/2022
STAR SINTERED PRODUCTS LTD. AND ANR. .....Plaintiffs
versus
KARAN BHUTANI .....Defendant
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 64/2024, I.A. 29769/2024, I.A.
29770/2024, I.A. 29771/2024, I.A. 29772/2024 & I.A. 29773/2024
STAR SINTERED PRODUCTS LTD .....Petitioner
versus
MR KARAN BHUTANI TRADING AS M/S KMSP INDUSTRIES
& ANR. .....Respondents
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2024, I.A. 29763/2024, I.A.
29764/2024, I.A. 29765/2024, I.A. 29766/2024 & I.A.
29767/2024
STAR SINTERED PRODUCTS LTD .....Petitioner
versus
MR KARAN BHUTANI TRADING AS M/S KMSP INDUSTRIES
& ANR. .....Respondents
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 1 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 66/2024, I.A. 29779/2024, I.A.
29780/2024, I.A. 29781/2024, I.A. 29782/2024 & I.A. 29783/2024
STAR SINTERED PRODUCTS LTD .....Petitioner
versus
MR KARAN BHUTANI TRADING AS M/S KMSP INDUSTRIES
& ANR. .....Respondents
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 67/2024, I.A. 29774/2024, I.A.
29775/2024, I.A. 29776/2024, I.A. 29777/2024 & I.A. 29778/2024
STAR SINTERED PRODUCTS LTD .....Petitioner
versus
MR KARAN BHUTANI TRADING AS M/S KMSP INDUSTRIES
& ANR. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in these cases
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Jain, Mr. Shailen Bhatia and Mr.
Raghav Bhalla, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Rakesh Tiwari and
Mr. Shiv Kumar Yadav, Advocates for R-1.
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Om Ram,
Advocate for R-2 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)
63/2024
Mr. Vinay Yadav, SPC, Ms. Kamna Behrani,
Mr. Ansh Kalra and Mr. Siddharth Gautam,
Advocates for R-2
Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, CGSC with Mr.
Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta,
Advocates for R-2 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-
TM) 64/2024
Mr. Arnav Kumar, CGSC with Ms. Gitanjali
Vohra, Advocate for R-2 in C.O.
(COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2024, 66/2025 &
67/2025
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 2 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J.
IA No.48849/2024 in O.A. 223/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63/2024,
IA No. 48832/2024 in O.A. 219/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 64/2024,
IA No.48833/2024 in O.A. 220/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2024,
IA No.48834/2024 in O.A. 221/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 66/2024
& IA No.48848/2024 in O.A. 222/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)
67/2024 (All for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals).
1. For the reasons stated in the Applications, the same are allowed.
2. The Applications are disposed of.
O.A. 223/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63/2024, O.A. 219/2024 in
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 64/2024, O.A. 220/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-
TM) 65/2024, O.A. 221/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 66/2024 & O.A.
222/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 67/2024
INTRODUCTION
3. The present Appeals arise from proceedings in the Rectification
Petitions (“Rectification Petitions”) filed against the registered Trade
Marks of the Appellant, wherein the Appellant’s right to file the Reply in the
Rectification Petitions was closed by the learned Joint Registrar of this
Court vide order dated 23.09.2024 (“Impugned Order”). The Appellant and
the Respondent herein are Respondent No. 1 and the Petitioner respectively
in the Rectification Petitions. The Parties are referred to by their standing in
the present Appeals.
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 3 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
4. The Respondent herein has filed the Rectification Petitions before this
Court seeking rectification of the registration of the Trade Marks by the
Appellant under Sections 9, 11, 18, 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
(“Act”) and for directions to the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the
said Trade Marks from the register under Section 47 / 57 / 125 of the Act.
5. It is stated that the Appellant and the Respondent are into litigation
since 2017 as Suit between the parties bearing CS. 217/2021 titled as “Star
Sintered Products Limited and Ors. Vs. Karan Bhutani” (“Suit“) for
permanent and mandatory injunction restraining passing of, dilution,
damages and rendition of account and counterclaim under CS. 218/2021
titled as “Karan Bhutani vs Star Sintered Products Limited & Anr”
(“Counterclaim”) are pending before the learned District Judge-02, North
East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (“Trial Court”). According to the
Appellant, the Respondent has not sought any permission from the learned
Trial Court before filing the Rectification Petitions before this Court and that
the Rectification Petitions are devoid of merits and ought to be dismissed as
such.
6. It is the Appellant’s case, that the Appellant was not aware of the
Rectification Petitions and, therefore, the Appellant had not entered the
appearance. However, the Appellant was appearing in CS(COMM) 97/2022
(“HC Suit”) titled as “Star Sintered Products Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mr.Karan
Bhutani trading as M/s KMSP Industries” filed by the Respondent before
this Court. The HC Suit is for permanent injunction restraining the
infringement of Trade Mark, passing off, violation of corporate name of the
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 4 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
Respondent, violation of copyright, damages, delivery up, etc. It is the
Appellant’s case that the Appellant for the first time became aware of the
Rectification Petitions filed by the Respondent when the said Rectification
Petitions were clubbed with the HC Suit on 25.09.2024.
7. The order dated 20.05.2024 passed by this Court in the Rectification
Petitions does not record the appearance of the Appellant. However, it states
that the Notice was accepted by the Appellant and a time of eight weeks was
given to the Appellant to file the Reply in the Rectification Petitions. Vide
order dated 20.05.2024, this Court further directed that the Rectification
Petitions be listed before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of
pleadings. Accordingly, the Rectification Petitions were listed before the
learned Joint Registrar on 10.07.2024, and the order passed on that date
records that the Notice was accepted by the Appellant in the Rectification
Petitions on 20.05.2024; however, no Reply was filed by the Appellant
thereafter. The learned Joint Registrar vide order dated 10.07.2024 further
granted a last opportunity to the Appellant to file the Reply within four
weeks and listed the matter for completion of pleadings on 23.09.2024.
8. The order dated 10.07.2024 also did not mark any appearance of the
Appellant. On the next date before the learned Joint Registrar on
23.09.2024, it was observed that despite repeated opportunities the
Appellant did not file his Reply and that none had appeared on behalf of the
Appellant as well. Accordingly, the learned Joint Registrar vide the
Impugned Order closed the Appellant’s right to file the Reply to the
Rectification Petitions.
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 5 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
9. The present Appeals have been filed against this Impugned Order
closing the Appellant’s right to file the Reply in the Rectification Petitions.
10. It is the case of the Appellant that there was no effective service of
summons in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules,
2018 in the Rectification Petitions and that the Appellant became aware of
the pendency of the Rectification Petitions only when the same were
clubbed with the HC Suit on 25.09.2024. It is the Appellant’s case that the
right to file a reply commences only upon proper service of summons, which
allegedly never occurred. The Appellant also submits that he has actively
participated in related proceedings with the Respondent since 2017 and there
was no reason to deliberately not file the Reply to the Rectification Petitions.
The Appellant further submits that the delay in appearance and filing of the
Reply was unintentional and that the prompt steps were taken upon gaining
knowledge of the proceedings in the Rectification Petitions.
11. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Impugned
Order has failed to appreciate that the period of limitation to file the Reply
would commence only when the Notice was duly served upon the Appellant.
Therefore, the closure of the Appellant’s right to file the Reply in the
Rectification Petitions without effective service will result in grave prejudice
to the Appellant’s substantive rights.
12. As regards the Notice issued on 20.05.2024, it was submitted by the
learned Counsel for the Appellant that no notice was ever received by the
Appellant in the Rectification Petitions on 20.05.2024. It was further
submitted that even the order dated 20.05.2024 reveals that there was no
appearance on behalf of the Appellant on 20.05.2024.
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 6 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
13. In Reply to these Appeals, the Respondent has submitted that the
Rectification Petitions filed by the Respondent were first listed before this
Court on 20.05.2024. The Reply further states that the Appellant was served
in advance with the complete set of paper book of the Rectification Petitions
at the time of filing the Rectification Petitions and that the service was
effected directly via email to the Appellant and additionally on the present
Counsel for the Appellant.
14. The Reply further states that on the said date i.e., 20.05.2024, the
Appellant was represented through its Counsel, however, no formal
appearance was marked, though the Counsel was present and accepted the
Notice on behalf of the Appellant. It is further stated in the Reply that there
was no occasion for issuance or service of Notice in the Rectification
Petitions as the Counsel for the Appellant accepted the same.
15. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that
the Rectification Petitions were served in advance to the Appellant and at no
point the Appellant has sought another copy of the Rectification Petitions,
thereby making it clear that the Appellant was in possession of the paper
book and represented through Counsel on 20.05.2024.
16. It is further submitted by the Respondent that the order dated
20.05.2024 has attained finality and the Appellant, cannot now contend that
the Notice was not accepted by his Counsel on the said date.
17. It is further stated in the Reply that despite being aware of the
pendency of the Rectification Petitions and despite having accepted the
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 7 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
Notice in the said proceedings, the Appellant deliberately chose not to
appear on subsequent dates of hearing.
18. It is further stated in the Reply that the order dated 10.07.2024 passed
by the learned Joint Registrar observing that the Notice was accepted by the
Appellant in the Rectification Petitions on 20.05.2024; no Reply was filed
by the Appellant and that a last opportunity to file the Reply within four
weeks was granted to the Appellant was available on the website of this
Court and the Appellant is presumed to have knowledge of the same.
Despite repeated latitude being granted by this Court, the Appellant has
failed to file the Reply to the Rectification Petitions, therefore the learned
Joint Registrar vide the Impugned Order has rightly closed the Appellant’s
right to file the Reply.
19. It is further submitted by the Respondent that the HC Suit was listed
before this Court on 09.08.2024 and 25.09.2024. On 09.08.2024, this Court
was pleased to observe that the HC Suit be listed along with the
Rectification Petitions. The Appellant was represented through Counsel on
09.08.2024 and was, therefore, again made aware of the pendency of the
Rectification Petitions.
20. It is further stated in the Reply that the Appellant, remained silent for
over a month and a half after 09.08.2024 and has failed to explain this delay.
It is submitted that despite being aware of the pendency, no steps were taken
to file the Reply and, therefore, the Appellant’s conduct in ignorance is a
deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings in the Rectification Petitions.
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 8 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
21. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the
Appellant’s claim of not having knowledge of the Rectification Petitions is
false and contrary to record and that this is a standard practice employed by
the Appellant in various cases.
22. A Rejoinder to the Reply has also been filed by the Appellant, which
states that no Notice was ever issued in the Rectification Petitions in terms
of Order V Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Rule 1
of Chapter VI of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
Therefore, the Impugned Order has seriously prejudiced the substantive and
valuable rights of the Appellant by taking away the right to defend the
Rectification Petitions.
23. The Rejoinder filed by the Appellant states that even the order dated
20.05.2024 reveals that there was no appearance on behalf of the Appellant.
The Rejoinder further states that no Notice was ever received by the
Appellant in respect of the Rectification Petitions on the said date
20.05.2024 and the Appellant only became aware of Rectification Petitions
on 25.09.2024, when the HC Suit was listed before this Court along with
Rectification Petitions.
24. It is submitted that the Impugned Order has caused serious prejudice
and curtailed the Appellant’s valuable right to contest the Rectification
Petitions and is therefore vitiated both in law and on facts, having been
passed without ensuring proper service and opportunity to the Appellant.
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 9 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT
25. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant
was never properly served with the Notice in the Rectification Petitions and
that if the Appellant had been served, he would have certainly appeared and
filed its reply, as he has always participated in litigation related to these
Trade Marks since 2017. It is submitted that even though an order dated
09.08.2024 is relied on by the Respondent to show the Appellant’s
knowledge, the said Counsel was appearing in the HC Suit and not in the
Rectification Petitions.
26. It is further submitted that the first appearance by the Appellant in the
Rectification Petitions was on 25.09.2024. When it became aware of the
pendency, the Appellant expeditiously took necessary steps without any
attempt to delay the Rectification Petitions. It is further submitted that there
was no reason to avoid or delay the Rectification Petitions as the Appellant
has been contesting similar matters since 2017.
27. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further relied on the history of
litigation between the parties and pleadings to highlight the consistent
appearances in the HC Suit filed before this Court.
28. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the closing of
his right to file the Reply was based on non-appearance orders particularly
order dated 23.09.2024, and is attributable to lack of prior knowledge or
service, and not negligence. Therefore, given the circumstances, the closure
was unduly harsh. The learned Counsel pointed out the orders passed in the
HC Suit and the Rectification Petitions, and submitted that the Appellant’s
presence is marked in the HC Suit but not in the Rectification Petitions, and
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 10 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
submitted that the said non-appearance supports the Appellant’s submission
that he had no effective Notice in the Rectification Petitions.
29. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the
Appellant has no incentive to avoid participation in the proceedings in the
Rectification Petitions, given that his entire defence in the HC Suit has a
nexus with that of Rectification Petitions and that the Appellant would never
avoid participating in hearings that go to the core of his case. It is submitted
that the Appellant’s actions reflect bona fide conduct and prompt steps
undertaken to address any procedural defaults as soon as they came to his
attention. Therefore, the Impugned Order closing the Appellant’s right to
file the Reply in the Rectification Petitions deserves to be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
30. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant
was duly served the Notice in the Rectification Petitions and it is evidenced
by several orders specifically, the order dated 20.05.2024, where this Court
recorded that the Notice was accepted by and on behalf of the Appellant.
The learned Counsel submitted that the Appellant on the said date had
appeared virtually but did not mark their appearance. It is further submitted
that even if the Appellant claims not to have appeared, the knowledge can be
imputed from participation in related matters.
31. The learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the
Appellant’s shifting stance about lack of knowledge and service is a tactical
ploy to delay the adjudication of the Rectification Petitions and that the
Respondent having regularly participated, the case should now proceed
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 11 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
without reopening issues rightfully closed for want of the Appellant’s timely
participation.
32. Lastly, it is submitted that the right to file the Reply was closed after
being given repeated opportunities along with extensions. Therefore, the
closing of the right to file the Reply vide the Impugned Order is justified and
does not warrant any interference.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
33. The primary issue arising for consideration in the present Appeals is
whether the Impugned Order whereby the Appellant’s right to file the Reply
to the Rectification Petitions was closed, is justified in law and on facts.
34. The material placed on record reveals that the Appellant’s presence
has been marked in the HC Suit but not in the Rectification Petitions prior to
25.09.2024. The Respondent has relied on orders dated 20.05.2024 and
09.08.2024 to submit that the Appellant had knowledge of the Rectification
Petitions. The relevant part of the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by this
Court in the Rectification Petitions and the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by
this Court in the HC Suit are reproduced below-
The order dated 20.05.2024-
“3. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63/2024 has been transferred from the
Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula on account of matters
being connected.
4. Issue notice.
5. Notice is accepted by cousnel apeparing on behalf of respondent
no.2, Registrar of Trademarks, in all above captioned petitons, as
also by respondnet no.1 in these petitions.
6. Reply be filed with next 8 weeks with copies to the opposing side;
rejonder be filed thereafter before the next date of hearing.”
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 12 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
The order dated 09.08.2024-
“1. Written submissions on behalf of the plaintiffs, along with
judgments, are stated to have been re-filed yesterday, i.e., 08th
August, 2024.
2. Let the Registry place the same on record.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that connected matters
being C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 64/2024 and other connected matters,
are listed for hearing on 25th September, 2024. He, thus, submits
that the present matter be listed, along with the same.
4. Accordingly, list the present suit along with C.O. (COMM.IPD-
TM) 64/2024 and other connected matters, on 25th September,
2024.”
35. Before proceeding to the factual aspects of the case, it is pertinent to
examine how procedural lapses have been addressed in situations where
lapses have the effect of curtailing a party’s right in proceedings. The
Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC
123 has observed that:
11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties.
They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics,
but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal
remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The
law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the
redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted
time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes
would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by
approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy.
Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending
uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus
founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest
reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a
period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to
destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 13 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The
idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively
fixed period of time.
12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in
foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no
presumption that delay in approaching the court is always
deliberate. This Court has held that the words “sufficient cause”
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala
Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575 : (1969) 1 SCR 1006]
and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality [(1972) 1
SCC 366 : AIR 1972 SC 749].
13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be
some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not
enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the
explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part
of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to
the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the
delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the
court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While
condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party
altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too
would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a
salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches
on the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite
party for his loss.
36. In the same vein, the discretionary jurisdiction of a court to extend
time or grant procedural indulgence where warranted by the circumstances
is also well established. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case
of Nashik Municipal Corpn. v. R.M. Bhandari, (2016) 6 SCC 245 are
relevant to the present case and the same are reproduced below:
“13. In Chinnamarkathian v. Ayyavoo [Chinnamarkathian v. Ayyavo
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 14 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
o, (1982) 1 SCC 159] , this Court called in the principle of equity
and held that the court has the jurisdiction to examine alteration or
modification which may necessitate extension of time. In para 15,
this Court held as under : (SCC p. 168)
“15. … It is a well-accepted principle statutorily recognised in
Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure that where a period is
fixed or granted by the court for doing any act prescribed or allowed
by the Code, the court may in its discretion from time to time enlarge
such period even though the period originally fixed or granted may
expire. If a court in exercise of the jurisdiction can grant time to do
a thing, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary
curtailing, denying or withholding such jurisdiction, the jurisdiction
to grant time would inhere in its ambit the jurisdiction to extend time
initially fixed by it. Passing a composite order would be acting in
disregard of the jurisdiction in that while granting time
simultaneously the court denies to itself the jurisdiction to extend
time. The principle of equity is that when some circumstances are to
be taken into account for fixing a length of time within which a
certain action is to be taken, the court retains to itself the
jurisdiction to re-examine the alteration or modification of
circumstances which may necessitate extension of time. If the court
by its own act denies itself the jurisdiction to do so, it would be
denying to itself the jurisdiction which in the absence of a negative
provision, it undoubtedly enjoys.”
37. As regards the submission that the paper book of the Rectification
Petitions was already served on the Appellant giving knowledge of the
proceedings in Rectification Petitions is concerned, the same cannot
dispense with the requirement of service of Notice. In Sunil Gupta v. Asset
Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2159, the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court was dealing with a situation where an ex
parte decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal was challenged on the
ground that the petitioners therein were never served. In response, the
respondent contended that the petitioners had prior knowledge of the
proceedings and had earlier filed objections, an advocate appearing on their
behalf had also sought time. The Bombay High Court in the said case
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 15 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
observed that mere filing of any application or the act of seeking time by an
advocate allegedly on behalf of a party does not dispense with the statutory
requirement of service under law. The Bombay High Court further observed
that mere knowledge of the pendency of proceedings cannot be treated as a
substitute for proper service and that the right of a party to defend cannot be
taken away merely on the basis of presumed awareness.
38. The observations of the Supreme Court as reproduced above further
underscore the importance of ensuring that procedural rules serve the ends
of justice and are not applied in a manner that results in undue prejudice.
39. In the present case, it is evident that the Appellant’s appearance is not
marked on dates prior to the date on which the HC Suit was clubbed with
Rectification Petitions. The Appellant had no incentive to delay proceedings
in the Rectification Petitions having a direct bearing on the HC Suit for
injunction and damages pending before this Court, as well as the
Counterclaim before the learned Trial Court. It is also a matter of record that
the Appellant had been participating in the HC Suit even prior to its
clubbing with the Rectification Petitions. Therefore, the Appellant had no
reason to stay away from the proceedings in the Rectification Petitions while
pursuing his defence in parallel litigation.
40. The order dated 20.05.2024 does state that the Notice was issued and
accepted on behalf of “Respondent No. 1”, i.e., the Appellant herein.
However, there is no formal appearance recorded for the Appellant, nor is it
clear who accepted the said Notice. None of the orders passed in the
Rectification Petitions prior to 25.09.2024 record the Appellant’s presence.
In such circumstances, it would not be possible to attribute the delay to the
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 16 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37
Appellant. In view of the ambiguity on record, it would be in the interest of
justice to give benefit of doubt to the Appellant. Accordingly, the Impugned
Order passed by the learned Joint Registrar is set aside. The Appellant is
granted one last opportunity of two weeks to file its Reply to the
Rectification Petitions, subject to imposition of costs of Rs 25,000/- payable
to the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund [A/C 15530110074442; IFSC
UCBA0001553] within two weeks.
41. The present Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63/2024, CS(COMM) 97/2022, C.O.
(COMM.IPD-TM) 64/2024, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2024, C.O.
(COMM.IPD-TM) 66/2024 & C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 67/2024
42. List on 17.09.2025.
TEJAS KARIA, J
JULY 31, 2025/hk
Signature Not Verified C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 63-67/2024 Page 17 of 17
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:01.08.2025
11:27:37