CIDEAS INVESTMENTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. SUBHOJA GLOBAL PVT. LTD. AND 4 ORS.
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI, CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE W. DIENGDOH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2025-08-19. CIDEAS INVESTMENTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ANR. v. SUBHOJA GLOBAL PVT. LTD. AND 4 ORS. Read the judgment...
Judgment text
Serial No. 02 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA Daily List AT SHILLONG FA No. 7 of 2025 Date of order: 19. 08. 2025 1. Cideas Investments (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2. CG Foods India Pvt. Ltd. …Appellants - versus - 1. Subhoja Global Pvt. Ltd. a company registered under Indian th Companies Act, 2013, having its registered office at 247 Park, 13 Floor, V. C. Park, Tower-B, Mumbai, Marashtra-400079, represented by its Managing Director. 2. Mr Vishal Goenka, Director, C/o Subhoja Global Pvt. Ltd. , having th its registered office at 247 Park, 13 Floor, V. C. Park, Tower-B, Mumbai, Marashtra-400079 …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice I. P. Mukerji, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Appellants : Mr I. Kharmujai, Adv Ms T. Pohlong, Adv Mr V. Bansal, Adv For the Respondent : Ms M. Surong, Adv i) Whether approved for Yes/No reporting in Law journals etc.
: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press: JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral) We admit this appeal. As the facts involved are very serious and urgent in nature, dispensing with all formalities we propose to hear out the appeal today. th We are absolutely surprised to read the impugned order dated 17 June, 2025. The plaintiffs instituted a trademark action being Commercial Suit No. 3 of 2025 against the defendants in the court of the Judge, Commercial Court at Shillong in or about April, 2025. It alleged infringement by the defendants of their registered trademark “WAI WAI” by registration of a mark “WOK WAY” and also passing off their goods as those of the plaintiffs. On the face of it, this kind of a suit calls for urgent reliefs in the form of an injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark.
It may or may not be pleaded specifically in the plaint that “urgent relief is contemplated,” the grounds of such urgent relief are usually made out in the interim application in aid of the suit. The learned judge committed a serious error in rejecting the th plaint. We set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17 June, 2025. We allow the appeal. This order is to be taken as one under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 permitting the appellants/plaintiffs to institute the suit without undergoing the process of mediation. The suit is revived. Any interim application pending before the court, on the merits of the case may be considered by the learned District Judge in accordance with law. (W. Diengdoh) (I. P. Mukerji) Judge Chief Justice Meghalaya 19. 08. 2025 “Sylvana PS”
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.