"Three Times Is Enemy Action": Delhi High Court Quotes James Bond To Vacate Ex-Parte Injunction Obtained By Suppression
|The Bench noted that a discretion exercised under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC is neutralised when ex-parte injunction is obtained by misrepresenting cause of action date.
Quoting the iconic Ian Fleming’s James Bond, Goldfinger (Jonathan Cape, 1959) line, "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action", the Delhi High Court has emphasized that a persistent pattern of non-disclosure by legal counsel across multiple suits constitutes a deliberate design to interfere with the judicial process, which cannot be condoned under the guise of intellectual property protection.
The Court held that a plaintiff who suppresses material documents or misrepresents the cause of action to obtain an ex-parte injunction is not entitled to equitable relief. It clarified that Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC cannot be misused by creating false urgency or withholding cease-and-desist notices and trademark objections. Lack of utmost good faith warrants vacation of the ex-parte order and dismissal of the interim injunction plea.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “The conduct of the filing counsel for the Respondent reminds the Court of the famous quote ‘Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action’. A repeated event is no longer random, but is a deliberate act. In this case, the proceedings of the three suits show a consistent pattern/trend followed by the filing counsel, by design, with an intent of interfering with the judicial process. This Court would have considered the merits of the explanation of inadvertence offered by the Respondent. However, in view of the consistent pattern and approach adopted by the Respondent’s filing counsel, as noticed hereinabove, this explanation cannot be accepted. The omission, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be attributed to inadvertence or oversight but appears to be deliberate and wilful, with a view to withholding material information from the Court to seek orders at an ex-parte hearing”.
Advocate Amar Shankar appeared for the appellants and Advocate Sachin Gupta appeared for the respondent.
The dispute arose between two pharmaceutical companies manufacturing nutraceutical products. Respondent Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd., owner of the registered trademark ‘NUREWIRE’, instituted a commercial suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and its founding promoter.
The Appellants had applied for the trademark ‘RewireX’ and launched products in March 2026. In May 2026, the Respondent approached the Court claiming it first gained knowledge of the Appellants' mark in May 2026 and obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and local commissioner appointment from the Single Judge.
Aggrieved by the ex-parte order, the Appellants filed an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Appellants contended that the Respondent had actively suppressed a prior cease-and-desist notice dated October 29, 2025, and formal opposition filed before the Registrar of Trade Marks on January 27, 2026, which proved the Respondent’s knowledge of the mark since 2025.
The Division Bench observed that the Respondent had committed a wilful suppression of material facts by failing to plead the 2025 notice and 2026 opposition in the plaint or index, thereby misleading the Single Judge into believing that an immediate cause of action arose in May 2026.
The Court highlighted that tucking away documents deep inside a procedural bundle marked ‘COLLY’ does not fulfill the statutory duty of disclosure mandated by the Statement of Truth under the Commercial Courts Act. Relying on landmark precedents such as Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Others (2010) 4 SCC 728, and Amar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2011) 7 SCC 69, the Court held that a party seeking ex-parte equitable relief is bound by the strictest duty of candor.
“We are of the firm view that if the Respondent’s misconduct is overlooked by us on the touchstone of likelihood of confusion amongst the public under the law of infringement, we will have to forever sacrifice the principle of clean hands for the plaintiff in litigation pertaining to infringement or passing off. In our considered opinion, if the Respondent’s wilful misconduct is condoned, the harm caused to the judicial process will be far more that that caused by the sale of the Appellants’ products”, the Bench noted.
Setting aside the Single Judge’s order, the Court vacated the ex-parte interim injunction, dismissed the interim injunction application, directed the release of seized goods from superdari, and slapped costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the Respondent to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
Cause Title: Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6947-DB)
Appearances:
Appellants: Amar Shankar, Advocate.
Respondent: Sachin Gupta, Rajat Jain, Rohit Pradhan, Prashansa, and Mahima, Advocates.