The case of Sana Herbal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dehlvi Ambar Herbals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [FAO(COMM) 104/2025] represents a significant procedural ruling by the Delhi High Court, addressing the appropriateness of denying an ex parte ad interim injunction solely on the ground that the defendant is already active in the market. This appea arose from a commercial suit involving intellectual property disputes.

The High Court's decision underscores the principles governing interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), emphasizing that the defendant's market presence alone is an insufficient basis for rejecting such relief. This case study provides a detailed analysis of the factual and procedural background, issues, submissions, judicial reasoning, cited judgments, and the law settled, offering insights into the judicial approach to interim injunctions in commercial litigation.

• Detailed Factual Background: The appellant, Sana Herbal Pvt. Ltd., initiated a commercial suit (CS (COMM) 152/2025) against the respondents, Dehlvi Ambar Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and another party, before the District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Delhi.
  • The suit involved claims related to intellectual property infringement, such as trademarks, given the nature of the parties (herbal product companies) and the context of commercial litigation.
  • The appellant sought an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the respondents from engaging in activities allegedly infringing the appellant's rights, such as using similar trademarks or trade names.
  • On March 29, 2025, the learned Commercial Court passed an order refusing the appellant's prayer for an ex parte ad interim injunction.
  • The sole ground cited by the court was that the respondent was already active in the market, implying that the respondent's established presence negated the need for immediate injunctive relief.
  • Dissatisfied with this reasoning, the appellant filed an appeal (FAO(COMM) 104/2025) before the Delhi High Court, challenging the Commercial Court's order to the extent it denied the ex parte injunction.
  • The appeal was accompanied by applications (CM APPLs. 25826-829/2025), likely for interim relief and procedural directions.
    
• Detailed Procedural Background: The procedural journey began with the filing of CS (COMM) 152/2025 by Sana Herbal Pvt. Ltd. before the Commercial Court-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
  • The appellant's application for an ex parte ad interim injunction was considered by the learned District Judge, who, on March 29, 2025, rejected the prayer, citing the respondent's existing market presence.
  • Aggrieved, the appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, filing FAO(COMM) 104/2025 along with related applications.
    
• Issues Involved in the Case: The primary issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the Commercial Court erred in denying the appellant's prayer for an ex parte ad interim injunction solely on the ground that the respondent was already in the market.
  
• Appellant's Submission:
  • The appellant argued that the Commercial Court's refusal of the ex parte injunction was legally unsustainable.
  • They contended that the respondent's market presence was not a valid ground for denying interim relief, as it failed to address the established criteria for granting an injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
  • Citing the Division Bench's decision in Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. SBN Gaming Network Pvt. Ltd. [FAO(COMM) 209/2023, dated October 11, 2023], they argued that prior market presence alone cannot negate the need for injunctive relief.
  • They emphasized that in intellectual property disputes, ongoing infringement could cause irreparable harm.
  • The appellant urged the High Court to set aside the impugned order and either grant the injunction or direct the Commercial Court to reconsider the application on merits.

Detailed Discussion on Judgments and Citations:
The High Court relied on a single precedent cited by the appellant, which was directly relevant to the issue of denying an injunction based on the defendant's market presence. Below is a detailed discussion of the judgment, its citation, and its context in the case:

Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. SBN Gaming Network Pvt. Ltd., FAO(COMM) 209/2023, dated October 11, 2023: This Delhi High Court Division Bench decision was pivotal to the appellant's case and the court's reasoning. In Hulm Entertainment, the court held that the defendant's prior presence in the market cannot be the sole basis for rejecting an ex parte ad interim injunction. The judgment emphasized that the grant or refusal of an injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC must be based on a comprehensive assessment of the three-pronged test: a prima facie case, balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff, and the likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The court found that the Commercial Court's reliance on the respondent's market presence in the present case mirrored the error in Hulm Entertainment, as it failed to engage with these essential criteria. The precedent underscored that market presence is merely one factor and cannot override the plaintiff's entitlement to relief if the requisite legal thresholds are met.

Analysis of Judge:
The Division Bench provided a concise yet incisive analysis, focusing on the legal propriety of the Commercial Court's reasoning and the appropriate procedural remedy. Relying on Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. SBN Gaming Network Pvt. Ltd., the court held that this ground was prima facie untenable, as prior market presence alone cannot justify denying an injunction. The court emphasized that Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC require a holistic evaluation of the plaintiff's prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the potential for irreparable harm. By focusing exclusively on the respondent's market activity, the Commercial Court failed to apply these principles, rendering its order legally flawed. The court mandated that both parties file written submissions within ten days and appear before the Commercial Court on May 22, 2025, for a final hearing on the Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 application. The court further requested the Commercial Court to decide the application expeditiously, ensuring no undue delay in resolving the dispute.

Final Decision:
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal (FAO(COMM) 104/2025) and associated applications (CM APPLs. 25826-829/2025) on May 1, 2025. The court set aside the Commercial Court's reasoning in the order dated March 29, 2025, to the extent it denied the ex parte ad interim injunction based solely on the respondent's market presence. Instead of granting the injunction itself, the court directed both parties to file written submissions before the Commercial Court within ten days and appear on May 22, 2025, for a final hearing on the Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 application. The Commercial Court was requested to decide the application expeditiously, uninfluenced by the impugned order's observations.

Law Settled in the Case:
The case clarified the following principles under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in the context of commercial disputes: Invalidity of Market Presence as Sole Ground: The defendant's prior market presence cannot be the sole basis for denying an ex parte ad interim injunction, as it fails to address the mandatory criteria of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Comprehensive Evaluation Required: The grant or refusal of an interim injunction requires a holistic assessment of the three-pronged test under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, ensuring that all relevant factors are considered. Appellate Discretion in Procedural Errors: Appellate courts may refrain from deciding the merits of an injunction application if the defendant is present, opting instead to remand the matter for expeditious reconsideration by the trial court with proper legal standards.

Sana Herbal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dehlvi Ambar Herbals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.: May 1, 2025: FAO(COMM) 104/2025: High Court of Delhi: Hon'ble Justices Shri C. Hari Shankar, J. and Ajay Digpaul, J.

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539