SANJAY GUPTA AND VINAY GUPTA vs VINEET JAIN, PROPRIETOR OF VIJAYPAL VINEET KUMAR AND CO

Judgment text excerpt

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 44/2026, CM APPL. 9539/2026, CM APPL. 9540/2026, CM APPL. 9541/2026, CM APPL. 9542/2026 & CM APPL. 9543/2026 SANJAY GUPTA AND VINAY GUPTA .... Appellants Through: Mr. Gaurav Gogia, Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal. Adv. versus VINEET JAIN, PROPRIETOR OF VIJAYPAL VINEET KUMAR AND CO .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 11.02.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This appeal assails order dated 16 January 2026 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Courts-06)1, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS (Comm) 48/20262, issued summons in the suit and notice in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19083 filed by the appellant, returnable on 27 February 2026, i.e. 16 days from now. The appellant (the plaintiff in the suit) is aggrieved by the rejection, by the learned Commercial Court, of the 1 “learned Commercial Court” hereinafter 2 “the suit” hereinafter 3 “CPC” hereinafter Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 44/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 1 of 23 KUMAR Signing Date:13.02.2026 13:37:52 appellant’s prayer for ex parte ad interim injunction and appointment of a local commissioner to seize the allegedly infringing goods from the premises of the respondent-defendant. 2. In these circumstances, we suggested, to Mr. Gogia who appears on behalf of the appellant that it would be more expedient if we were to direct the learned Commercial Court to decide the Order XXXIX application on 27 February 2026. 3. We pointed out to Mr. Gogia that, else, observations which we may have to enter, if the appeal were to be argued exhaustively at an ad interim stage, may, if we were not in agreement with his submissions, p