Britannia Industries Ltd vs Desi Bites Snacks P Ltd & Ors on 28 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Delhi High Court
Britannia Industries Ltd vs Desi Bites Snacks P Ltd & Ors on 28 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28/02/2026
+ CS(COMM) 983/2024
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD .....Plaintiff
versus
DESI BITES SNACKS P LTD & ORS. .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Mr.
Adarsh Agarwal, Ms. Prashansa Singh, Ms.
Mahima Chanchalani, Ms. Diksha and Mr.
Ajay Kumar, Advocates.
For the Defendants : Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Mr. Kunal Vats and
Mr. Sanyam Suri, Advocates for D1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
CRL.M.A. 12448/2025 (for initiation of perjury proceedings against the
Plaintiff and Accused No. 2) / I.A. 8021/2025(U/O VI Rule 17 of the
CPC) / I.A. 8053/2025(U/O I Rule 10 of the CPC)
1. I.A. 8021/2025 is an application filed by the Plaintiff under Order VI
Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC“)
seeking amendment of the Plaint and I.A. 8053/2025 is an application filed
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 1 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
by the Plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment of
M/s Jai Food Products and Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal as Defendant Nos. 4
and 5 in the present Suit.
2. CRL.M.A. 12448/2025 is an application filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and
2 under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking initiation of the perjury proceedings against
Mr. Omar Waziri and the Plaintiff.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
3. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants
seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing in
confectionary / sweetmeats / food products, namely soan papdi, under the
Mark ‘GOOD DAY’ (“Subject Mark”).
4. The Plaintiff filed I.A. 44302/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
of the CPC seeking interim injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing
in confectionary / sweetmeats / food products, namely soan papdi, under the
Subject Mark. Vide order dated 07.11.2024, this Court granted ex-parte ad-
interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendants from
dealing in confectionary / sweetmeats / food products including but not
limited to papad or any other product under the Subject Mark.
5. Thereafter, the Defendants filed I.A. 4348/2025 under Section XXXIX
Rules 3 and 4 of the CPC for vacating the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order
dated 07.11.2024 passed by this Court. Vide order dated 18.02.2025, the ex-
parte injunction order passed by this Court on 07.11.2024 was vacated with
the consent of the Parties. Further, the matter was referred to the Delhi High
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 2 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for Mediation with the consent of
the Parties.
6. The Plaintiff, thereafter, filed I.A. 8053/2025 under Order I Rule 10 of
the CPC seeking impleadment of M/s Jai Food Products and Mr. Roop Chand
Agarwal as Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, and I.A. 8021/2025 under
Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the Plaint. Vide order
dated 16.04.2025, this Court issued Notice in both the aforesaid Applications
filed by the Plaintiff.
7. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed CRL.M.A 12448/2025 for initiation of
perjury proceedings under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS.
Vide order dated 25.04.2025, this Court issued Notice in the said Application.
8. Vide order dated 21.11.2025, after hearing the Parties, this Court
reserved the order in these Applications.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
9. The learned Counsel for the Defendants made the following
submissions:
9.1. The object and purpose of the Statement of Truth, as introduced
by way of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with corresponding
amendments in CPC, is to ensure that the averments/statements
made by the Parties, in their respective pleadings, are gospel
truth. This is evident from the parliamentary debate held in
respect of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Bill, 2015,
wherein it has been duly incorporated that any incorrect/untrueCS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 3 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
statements made in the pleadings or in the affidavit, shall attract
the penal provisions of perjury.
9.2. The Plaint, on bare reading, gives an impression that Defendant
Nos. 1 and 2 are new entrants in the market and have recently
adopted the Subject Mark. Further, in order to create false
urgency, the Plaintiff stated on oath that it became aware of the
Defendant’s product bearing the Subject Mark, only in the third
week of October 2024. The Plaintiff, while referring to the
pictures of the Defendants’ products, has further asserted that the
Defendants have recently adopted the Subject Mark, and have
commenced the marketing activities closer to the filing of the
present Suit.
9.3. One of the directors of Defendant No.1 Company – Mr. Roop
Chand Agarwal, adopted the Subject Mark on 05.01.1999 and
since then, the same is being used continuously and
uninterruptedly. Thereafter, Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal, filed a
Trade Mark application bearing no. 1157370 on 11.12.2002 for
the registration of the said Mark, in respect of ‘Papad’, in Class
30. The said application was accepted by the Trade Marks
Registry and accordingly, the registration certificate was issued
to Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal on 29.08.2005.
9.4. The fact that the Subject Mark is registered and has been in use
since the year 1999, is also in the knowledge of the Plaintiff as
the Plaintiff itself has even sought rectification bearing no.
265400 to the said registration, in the year 2018. This material
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 4 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
fact has been mischievously chosen to be withheld from this
Court in the present Suit. Further, to supplement this
suppression, the Plaintiff has even masked the correct identity of
Defendant No.1 by filing an incorrect MCA record of one ‘Desi
Bites Foods Pvt. Ltd.’ which is not the name of Defendant No. 1.
Had the correct name of Defendant No.1 been searched on the
MCA website, the same would have revealed that the registered
proprietor of the Subject Mark is one of the Directors in the
company. Even a simple Google search regarding Defendant
No.1 reveals the complete details of the company including the
name of the director, i.e., Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal.
9.5. The Plaintiff has averred in the Plaint that Defendant No.1 is also
dealing in papad, however, it has chosen to base its claim on soan
papdi only, so as to conceal the factum of Mr. Roop Chand
Agarwal dealing in papad since the year 1999. This shows that
the Plaintiff was all throughout aware of the correct factual
position qua the Defendants, but chose to suppress the same.
Further, the Plaintiff has mentioned the correct address of
Defendant No.1 only in the Memo of Parties, while deliberately
citing the incorrect address of the wrong entity, specifically in
Paragraph No. 20 of the Plaint.
9.6. It is incorrect to suggest on the part of the Plaintiff that it was not
aware of the association between Defendant No.1 company and
the proprietor of the Subject Mark – Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal as
firstly, the correct MCA record and a simple search on Google
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 5 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
would have revealed that Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal is a director
in Defendant No.1 company; secondly, the products procured by
the Plaintiff at the time of filing of the Suit, bear the same
Mark/logo, which form subject matter in the Rectification
bearing No. 265400 filed by the Plaintiff against the registration
of the said Mark in favour of Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal; and
lastly, the Plaint also discloses that the Defendants are dealing in
papad.
9.7. The Applications filed by the Plaintiff are only for the purpose
of whitewashing its illegal conduct. The Defendants, in their
Written Statement, have inter alia, adopted a defence of
misrepresentation, concealment and falsehood on behalf of the
Plaintiff. Such defence, by its very nature, questions the
maintainability of the Suit. It is a settled position of law that by
way of an amendment, the Plaintiff cannot rob the defendant of
a defence that has already been accrued in its favour. Therefore,
if the Plaintiff’s Applications are allowed, it would amount to
whitewashing the allegation of suppression, which is
impermissible in law. In support of its contention, the Defendants
have relied upon the decisions in Aura Synergy India Ltd. v.
New Age False Ceiling Co. (P) Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del
9911 and Huntsman International (India) Private Limited v.
Abiss Textile Solutions Private Limited, 2018 SCC OnLine Del
7545.
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 6 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
10. In view of the foregoing submissions, Defendants have prayed to allow
the perjury application being CRL.M.A. 12448/2025 and dismiss the
Plaintiff’s applications being I.A. 8021/2025 and I.A. 8053/2025.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
11. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff advanced the following
submissions:
11.1. Defendant No. 1 company does not have any registration for the
Subject Mark in any class. The registration for the Subject Mark
in class 30 bearing no. 1157370 is only for ‘papad’, and is in the
name of Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal, who is trading as M/s Jai
Food Products. Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal does not have any
registration of the Subject Mark for other goods such as soan
papdi, ethnic snacks, etc.
11.2. Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal’s application bearing no. 3264933
dated 20.05.2016 for the registration of the label ‘GOOD DAY’
in class 30 for sweets, namkeen, spices, instant mixes and ice-
cream, was refused due to multiple applications of the Plaintiff
were cited against the said application. As the said refusal order
was not challenged, it has attained finality.
11.3. The representative of the Plaintiff who signed the Plaint had
joined the Plaintiff organization in the year 2021, and was not
aware of the cancellation proceedings, which commenced in the
year 2018. Therefore, it was an inadvertent error on behalf of the
Plaintiff and for that reason the ex-parte injunction order dated
07.11.2024 was vacated with the Plaintiff’s consent. Reliance
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 7 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
was placed on this Court’s decision in Sona BLW Precision
Forgings Ltd. v. Sona Mandhira (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine
Del 1118, to submit that the Plaintiff cannot be condemned
indefinitely for concealment and the element of public interest
has to be protected.
11.4. As per the MCA records, Defendant No. 1’s correct address is
“151, Mardhura Nagar, Opp. Mahila Police Station, Bikaner,
Rajasthan – 334001” whereas the address in the Memo of Parties
is “New Khasra No.-153/2021, Sidhi Vinayak Industrial Area,
Sahajbardarana, Sri Ganganagar Road, Bikaner – 334001”,
which is taken from the packaging of the Defendants’ products.
11.5. The Defendants’ packaging shows that the name of Defendant
No. 1 entails ‘DESI’ and ‘BITES’ as two separate words,
whereas the MCA record shows the same as one word
‘DESIBITES’ without any space in between. Therefore, it is
clear that as “DESI BITES SNACKS PRIVATE LIMITED.” and
“DESI BITES FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED” are deceptively
similar, which it led to confusion on the Plaintiff’s part and
caused inadvertent error in filing the Company Master Data of
Defendant No. 1. Hence, there was no attempt on the Plaintiff’s
part to conceal or misrepresent the details of Defendant No.1
company.
11.6. I.A. 8021/2025 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of
the CPC seeks the amendment of the Plaint in accordance with
paragraph no. 12 of the application for disclosing the pending
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 8 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
rectification petition between the Parties against the Subject
Mark bearing Application No. 1157370 in class 30, registered in
favour of Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal trading as M/s Jai Food
Products, who is allegedly a director of Defendant No. 1. Further,
the Plaintiff also seeks to disclose the history of the refused
Trade Mark Application bearing Application No. 3264933,
seeking registration of the label ‘GOOD DAY’ in class 30, in
favour of Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal.
11.7. The above averments are necessary for determining the real
question in controversy between the parties, i.e., whether there
was infringement of the Subject Mark by the Defendants.
Further, no prejudice would be caused to the Defendants if the
said application is allowed.
11.8. Further, I.A. 8053/2025 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC
seeking impleadment of M/s Jai Food Products and Mr. Roop
Chand Agarwal as Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the present Suit on
the ground that the Subject Mark bearing Application No.
1157370 in class 30, is registered in the name of Defendant No.
5, who is the proprietor of Defendant No. 4. This application
deserves to be allowed as Defendant Nos. 4 and 5, under the
guise of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, are engaged in dealing with
products bearing the Subject Mark, and therefore, their
impleadment is necessary for the proper adjudication of the
present Suit.
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 9 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
12. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the Defendants’
perjury application being CRL.M.A. 12448/2025 be dismissed and the
Plaintiff’s applications being I.A. 8021/2025 and I.A. 8053/2025 be allowed
in the interest of justice.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
13. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material
placed on record.
14. It is the Defendants’ case that appropriate proceedings shall be initiated
under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS against Mr. Omar
Waziri and the Plaintiff for making false statements on oath. Per contra, the
Plaintiff vehemently opposed the Defendants’ case and argued that no case is
made out for initiation of proceedings under the aforesaid provisions.
15. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is apposite to discuss the
settled position of law regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section
379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS. In Himanshu Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2023) 12 SCC 592, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“79. The law under Section 340CrPC on initiating proceedings has
been laid down in several of our judgments. Thus in Chajoo
Ram v. Radhey Shyam [Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC
774 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 331] , this Court, in para 7, stated as under :
(SCC p. 779)
“7. … No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false
affidavits is an evil which must be effectively curbed with
a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury too
readily and too frequently without due care and caution
and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very
purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is
considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish
the delinquent and not merely because there is some
inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent orCS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 10 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate
falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should
be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the
charge.”
******
81. Both the aforesaid judgments were referred to and relied upon
with approval in R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka [R.S.
Sujatha v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 5 SCC 689 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri)
757] . This Court, after setting down the law laid down in these two
judgments [Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 774 : 1971
SCC (Cri) 331] , [Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, (1982) 1 SCC
466 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 249] concluded : (R.S. Sujatha case [R.S.
Sujatha v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 5 SCC 689 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri)
757] , SCC pp. 694-95, para 18)
“18. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the
inquiry/contempt proceedings should be initiated by the
court in exceptional circumstances where the court is of
the opinion that perjury has been committed by a party
deliberately to have some beneficial order from the court.
There must be grounds of a nature higher than mere
surmise or suspicion for initiating such proceedings.
There must be distinct evidence of the commission of an
offence by such a person as mere suspicion cannot bring
home the charge of perjury. More so, the court has also to
determine as on facts, whether it is expedient in the interest
of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have
been committed.”
82. It is clear through from a reading of the aforesaid judgments that
there should be something deliberate — a statement should be made
deliberately and consciously which is found to be false as a result of
comparing it with unimpeachable evidence, documentary or
otherwise.”
16. From a perusal of the above judgment, it is clear that the perjury
proceedings under Section 379 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section
340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 215 of the
BNSS, cannot be initiated on mere surmise or suspicion and that there must
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 11 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
be clear evidence of the commission of the offence of perjury. It follows that
only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is of the opinion that
perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to secure some beneficial
order from the Court, should the perjury proceedings be initiated by the Court.
Therefore, perjury proceedings cannot be initiated without due care and
caution, and cannot be based on inconclusive or doubtful material, as the same
would otherwise defeat the very purpose of initiating such proceedings.
17. It is the Defendants’ case that the Plaintiff appears to give an impression
in the Plaint that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are new entrants in the market and
have recently adopted the Subject Mark, in order to create false urgency and
has stated on oath that it became aware of the Defendants’ products bearing
the Subject Mark only in the third week of October, 2024. However, one of
the Directors of Defendant No.1 company, i.e., Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal,
holds the registration of the Subject Mark bearing No. 1157370 in respect of
papad in Class 30, and that the said registration is known to the Plaintiff as
the Plaintiff itself had sought Rectification bearing No. 265400 of the Subject
Mark registered in favour of Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal. Therefore, the
Defendants allege that the Plaintiff has mischievously chosen to withhold the
said fact from this Court and this suppression is further supplemented by
masking the correct identity of Defendant No. 1 by filing incorrect MCA
record of one ‘Desi Bites Foods Private Limited’, which is not the correct
name of Defendant No.1. Further, it is also alleged that the address of
Defendant No. 1 has also been incorrectly mentioned in the Plaint, whereas
the correct address was mentioned in the Memo of Parties.
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 12 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
18. Additionally, it is claimed by the Defendants that the Plaintiff has
chosen to base its claim only on soan papdi as the Plaintiff was aware and
wanted to conceal that Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal was dealing in papad under
the Subject Mark since the year 1999. It is also alleged by the Defendants that
the Plaintiff was aware of the association between Defendant No. 1 company
and the proprietor of the Subject Mark in class 30 in respect of papad
products, i.e., Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal.
19. The Plaintiff has admitted that there was an inadvertent error on the
Plaintiff’s part to disclose the pending rectification petition filed by the
Plaintiff in the year 2018, seeking rectification of the Subject Mark in class
30 in respect of papad products, registered in the name of Mr. Roop Chand
Agarwal. Based on the said admission, the Defendants have argued that the
Plaintiff was aware that the Defendants were using the Subject Mark, and
despite such knowledge, the Plaintiff created false urgency by claiming that
the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendants’ products bearing the Subject
Mark in the third week of October 2024.
20. However, there is no force in the Defendants’ contention. Perusal of the
record does not suggest that the Plaintiff was aware of the connection between
Defendant No. 1 and Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal, in whose name the Subject
Mark is registered in respect of papad in class 30. The Plaintiff had filed
incorrect MCA record of Defendant No. 1, wherein the name of the company
was mentioned as “DESI BITES FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED” instead of
Defendant No.1’s correct name, i.e., “DESIBITES SNACKS PRIVATE
LIMITED”. Therefore, the name of the company wrongly included a space
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 13 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
between the words “DESI” and “BITES”, in addition to inclusion of the word
“FOODS” instead of “SNACKS”.
21. Perusal of the packaging of the Defendants’ products makes it clear that
the Defendants have also wrongly mentioned Defendant No.1 company’s
name as “DESI BITES SNACKS PRIVATE LIMITED” on their products,
thereby incorrectly including a space between the words “DESI” and
“BITES”. The Plaintiff’s case is based on the Defendants’ products entailing
the Subject Mark. Accordingly, it is clear that the confusion crept in on the
Plaintiff’s part due to the apparent similarity between the incorrect name of
Defendant No. 1 company on the Defendants’ products, i.e., “DESI BITES
SNACKS PRIVATE LIMITED”, and the incorrect name of Defendant No. 1
mentioned by the Plaintiff “DESI BITES FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED”,
whose MCA records were inadvertently filed by the Plaintiff. Therefore, given
that the Defendants themselves have erred in mentioning the correct name of
Defendant No.1 company on the packaging of their products under the Subject
Mark, it is unfounded that the Plaintiff relying upon the name of Defendant
No.1 company mentioned on the Defendants’ product, deliberately filed
incorrect MCA record of Defendant No. 1. As the Plaintiff was unaware of
the actual identity of Defendant No. 1 company, there is nothing to suggest
that the Plaintiff was aware that Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal was connected to
Defendant No. 1 as its Director. Hence, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff was
aware of the Defendants’ products since 2018 and wrongly claimed that it
became aware of it in the third week of October 2024.
22. The Defendants have further claimed that the Plaintiff deliberately
based its claim on soan papdi, while it was aware that Mr. Roop Chand
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 14 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
Agarwal was also dealing in papad, which is evident from perusal of the
Plaint, and the same was concealed by the Plaintiff. However, perusal of the
packaging of the Defendants’ soan papdi products shows that other available
products of the Defendants include papad, and therefore, merely relying upon
the fact that the Plaintiff has mentioned in the Plaint that Defendants’ products
include papad, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff was aware that Mr.
Roop Chand Agarwal, who was dealing in papad, was connected to Defendant
No. 1.
23. The Defendants have also alleged that the Plaintiff has deliberately
mentioned incorrect address of Defendant No. 1 in the Plaint, whereas correct
address is mentioned in the Memo of Parties. Perusal of paragraph no. 20 of
the Plaint makes it clear that the Plaintiff has mentioned both the registered
address of Defendant No. 1, i.e., 1414 Block-B, Gaur Global Village Crossing
Republik, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201016, and the address on the
packaging of the Defendants’ products, i.e., Khasra No. -153/3201, Sidhi
Vinayak Industrial Area, Sahajbardarana Sri Ganganagar Road 1, Bikaner –
334001. It is also worthwhile noting that the later address is mentioned in the
Memo of Parties. While it is true that the registered address as stated above is
incorrect, it is based on the incorrect MCA record inadvertently filed by the
Plaintiff based on the name mentioned on the packaging of Defendant No. 1.
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff deliberately suppressed or
concealed the correct address of Defendant No. 1.
24. It is settled law that perjury proceedings cannot be initiated on mere
surmise or suspicion and that there must be clear evidence of the commission
of the offence of perjury. In the present case, in view of the foregoing analysis,
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 15 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
it is clear that the Defendants’ case is based on mere surmise and conjecture,
and there is no unimpeachable evidence against the Plaintiff making out a
prima facie case for the initiation of proceedings under Section 379 read with
Section 215 of the BNSS.
25. Adverting to the issue of amendment of the Plaint, the Plaintiff has
placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar
Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385, wherein it was observed as under:
19. While considering whether an application for amendment
should or should not be allowed, the court should not go into the
correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it
should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the
merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of
amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the
prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed
by the High Court in the instant case.
20. We shall now consider the proposed amendment and to see
whether it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case as
observed by the Hon’ble Judges of the Division Bench and as to
whether the application does not appear to have been made in good
faith. We have already noticed the prayer in the plaint and the
application for amendment. In our view, the amendment sought was
necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy
between the parties as the beneficiaries of the Trust. It was alleged
that Respondent 1 is not only in exclusive possession of 57,942 shares
of GPI and the dividend received on the said shares but has also been
and is still exercising voting rights with regard to these shares and
that he has used the Trust to strengthen his control over GPI.
Therefore, the proposed amendment was sought in the interest of the
beneficiaries and to sell the shares and have the proceeds invested in
government bonds and/or securities. A reading of the entire plaint and
the prayer made thereunder and the proposed amendment would go
to show that there was no question of any inconsistency with the case
originally made out in the plaint. The court always gives leave to
amend the pleadings of a party unless it is satisfied that the party
applying was acting mala fide. There is a plethora of precedents
pertaining to the grant or refusal of permission for amendment of
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 16 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
pleadings. The various decisions rendered by this Court and the
proposition laid down therein are widely known. This Court has
consistently held that the amendment to pleading should be liberally
allowed since procedural obstacles ought not to impede the
dispensation of justice. The amendments sought for by the appellants
have become necessary in view of the facts that the appellants being
the beneficiaries of the Trust are not deriving any benefit from the
creation of the Trust since 1991-92 and that if the shares are sold and
then invested in government bonds/securities the investment would
yield a minimum return of 10-12%. It was alleged by the appellants
that Respondent 1 is opposing the sale in view of the fact that if the
said shares are sold after the suit is decreed in favour of the
appellants, he will be the loser and, therefore, it is solely on account
of the attitude on the part of Respondent 1 that the appellants have
been constrained to seek relief against the same.
[Emphasis supplied]
26. On the contrary, the Defendants contend that the amendment of the
Plaint should not be allowed in the present case as the same would amount to
whitewashing the allegations of suppression and concealment against the
Plaintiff, which is impermissible in law.
27. From the above analysis, it is clear that no case has been made out
against the Plaintiff suggesting that there was deliberate suppression,
concealment or misrepresentation on its part. Therefore, there is nothing on
record to satisfy this Court that the Plaintiff’s application for amending the
Plaint is mala fide in nature. Additionally, the amendment of the Plaint in the
present case is necessary to determine the real controversy between the Parties
and therefore, this Court must adopt a liberal approach in dealing with the
application for the amendment of the Plaint to not impede the administration
of justice.
28. Moreover, the addition of the proposed Defendant Nos. 4 and 5, i.e.,
M/s Jai Food Products and Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal respectively, is
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 17 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
necessary in order to effectively determine the real controversy between the
Parties to the present Suit, as Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal trading as M/s Jai
Food Products, holds the registration of the Subject Mark in class 30 in respect
of papad.
29. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, the Plaintiff’s I.A.
8021/2025 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC
seeking amendment of the Plaint, and I.A. 8053/2025 filed under Order I Rule
10 of the CPC seeking impleadment of M/s Jai Food Products and Mr. Roop
Chand Agarwal as Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the present Suit, stand allowed.
30. The amended Plaint filed along with I.A. 8021/2025 is taken on record.
The Plaintiff shall file amended memo of parties within a period of two weeks.
Let Summons be issued to the newly added Defendant Nos. 4 and 5.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 shall file amended Written Statement within a period
of 30 days from the date of this Judgement. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 shall file
their Written Statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of Summons.
Liberty is granted to the Plaintiff to file Replication(s), if any, within 30 days
from the receipt of the Written Statement(s).
31. CRL.M.A. 12448/2025 filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section
379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS seeking initiation of the perjury
proceedings against Mr. Omar Waziri and the Plaintiff stands dismissed.
32. In view of the above, I.A. 8021/2025, I.A. 8053/2025 and CRL.M.A.
12448/2025 stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
TEJAS KARIA, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2026
St
CS(COMM) 983/2024 Page 18 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:51:17
