Perjury Cannot Be Invoked On Mere Suspicion in Commercial Suits: Delhi HC Allows Britannia to Amend ‘GOOD DAY’ Trademark Plaint
Court holds deliberate falsehood must be clearly established before initiating perjury
Justice Tejas Karia, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court, in a commercial dispute concerning the use of the mark “GOOD DAY” for soan papdi, has held that perjury proceedings cannot be initiated merely on allegations of suppression, in the absence of clear and unimpeachable evidence of deliberate falsehood.
The suit was instituted by Britannia Industries Ltd. against Desi Bites Snacks Private Limited and others, seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from dealing in confectionery products, particularly soan papdi, under the mark “GOOD DAY”. An ex parte ad-interim injunction had initially been granted on 07-11-2024 but was later vacated with the consent of parties.
The Court found that the alleged discrepancies regarding the company’s name and address was a result partly from inconsistencies in the defendants’ own product packaging. The omission to disclose the rectification proceedings was held to be an inadvertent lapse rather than a calculated attempt to deceive.
Justice Tejas Karia rejected the plea, reiterating that perjury proceedings are to be initiated only in exceptional circumstances where there is clear evidence of conscious and deliberate falsehood intended to secure a beneficial order.
“…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 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”, the Bench observed.
Advocate Sachin Gupta appeared for the plaintiff and Advocate Sudeep Chatterjee appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the defendants had subsequently sought initiation of perjury proceedings under Sections 379 and 215 of the BNSS, alleging that Britannia had suppressed material facts, including the existence of a prior registration of the mark in respect of papad in the name of Roop Chand Agarwal and a pending rectification petition filed in 2018.
It was contended that Britannia had falsely claimed to have become aware of the defendants’ use only in October 2024 and had filed incorrect MCA records to mislead the Court.
Therefore, the Court observed that amendments necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties should be liberally allowed unless shown to be mala fide. Accepting Britannia’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court permitted amendment of the plaint to disclose the rectification proceedings and the history of the trademark registration.
It also allowed impleadment of M/s Jai Food Products and Roop Chand Agarwal, in whose name the mark stood registered in Class 30 for papad, holding that their presence was necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute concerning the “GOOD DAY” mark.
“…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”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the perjury application was dismissed, while the applications for amendment and impleadment were allowed, reinforcing the principle that serious criminal consequences cannot flow from procedural lapses absent clear proof of intentional deception.
Cause Title: Britannia Industries Ltd v. Desi Bites Snacks P Ltd & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1826]
Appearances:
Plaintiff: Sachin Gupta, Rohit Pradhan, Adarsh Agarwal, Prashansa Singh, Mahima Chanchalani, Diksha and Ajay Kumar, Advocates.
Defendant: Sudeep Chatterjee, Kunal Vats and Sanyam Suri, Advocates.