Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Anr, vs Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 31.08.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010295952026
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 167/2026
NUGENESYS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR,
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Amar Shankar and Ms. Rohini
Wagh, Advs.

versus

CELAGENEX RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Ajay Kumar,
Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Ms. Anupriya,
Prashansa Singh, Ms. Mahima, Advs.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. ( ORAL )

REVIEW PET. 391/2026
1. This petition seeks review of the judgment dated 20.08.2026
[‘impugned judgment’] insofar as paragraph nos. 45 to 53 and the last two
sentences of paragraph no. 56 are concerned.
2. This review petition has been preferred by the counsel on record for
the respondent, and is supported by his personal affidavit. This petition is


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:11
REVIEW PET. 391/2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026 Page 1 of 9

therefore not preferred by the respondent, i.e., the plaintiff, but by the
counsel in his personal capacity. The counsel on record appeared in person
and submitted that he is relying upon the averments made in the application
for seeking review.
3. The pleadings in the review petition have been examined keeping
these facts in mind.

4. At paragraph no. 4, sub-para-A, of this review petition, the applicant
contends that the reliance placed by this Court on the findings of
suppression accompanied with imposition of costs of Rs. 10 lakhs, passed by
1
the learned Single Judge, in CS(COMM) 328/2022 in the order dated
22.11.2022, for drawing an inference of pattern of suppression ought to be
reconsidered. The applicant relies on the initial interim order dated
2
30.11.2022 passed by the Division Bench in FAO(OS)(COMM) 310/2022 ,
whereby the direction for payment of costs was stayed.
4.1. We find no merit in the said submission. The final order dated
28.10.2025 passed by the Division Bench in FAO(OS)(COMM) 310/2022
setting aside the direction of payment of costs on the consent of the parties
was duly noted by this Court at paragraph no. 46 of the impugned judgment.
The interim order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Division Bench has no
bearing on the conclusion drawn by us, as regards the existence of a repeat
pattern of suppression of documents by the same filing counsel in more than
one matter.

1
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4015
2
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. DWD Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2025:DHC:9491


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:11
REVIEW PET. 391/2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026 Page 2 of 9

5. At paragraph no. 4, sub-para-B, of this review petition, the applicant
contends that the reference in the impugned judgment to the findings of
suppression of documents in the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the
3
learned Single Judge in CS(COMM) 283/2023 is not justified, in view of
the factual matrix of the said case as well as the judgment dated 01.07.2026
4
passed by the Division Bench in FAO(OS)(COMM) 200/2023 accepting
the submission of inadvertence for the non-disclosure.
5.1. We find no merit in the said submission. The judgment of the
Division Bench dated 01.07.2026, which was authored by us, has been
considered and duly discussed at paragraph no. 47 of the impugned
judgment. Our conclusion that the proceedings of CS(COMM) 283/2023 is
yet another instance of non-disclosure of documents in proceedings filed by
the same counsel does not require a review.
6. At paragraph no. 5 of this review petition, the applicant has asserted
that the legal notice dated 29.10.2025 and the objections dated 27.01.2026
filed before the Registrar of Trademarks were not brought to the knowledge
of the counsel by the respondent/plaintiff. It is contended that had these
documents been brought to his attention by the plaintiff, the same would
have ordinarily been pleaded as it would have supported the plaintiff’s case.
6.1. The said submission of the applicant fails to persuade us for several

reasons.
6.2. First, the application is not supported with the affidavit of the

3
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4932
4
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5065


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:11
REVIEW PET. 391/2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026 Page 3 of 9

respondent’s representative. The respondent has not taken a stance that it
had not informed the counsel.
6.3. Second, the documents in question form part of the bunch of
documents filed with the plaint at serial no. 2 under the obscure heading
“Prosecution documents qua the Defendant’s impugned mark RewireX
under Application No. 6892520 dated 06.03.2025 in Class 5”. It is the legal
obligation of the filing counsel to peruse and verify each document before
filing it with the plaint. Therefore, it is to be presumed that upon perusing
the bundle of documents filed at serial no. 2 with the plaint, the filing
counsel would have become aware of the existence of these documents.
6.4. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the
5
Supreme Court in Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement .
The relevant paragraph reads as under: -
“13. It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking
justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and
that every advocate being an officer of the court, though appearing for a
particular party, is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its
function to administer the justice . It hardly needs to be emphasized that a
very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from
the advocates particularly designated Senior advocates appearing in the
highest court of the country so that their professionalism may be followed
and emulated by the advocates practicing in the High Courts and the District
Courts. Though it is true that the advocates would settle the pleadings
and argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however
their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using
their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated .”
[Emphasis Supplied]
6.5. We also find it apposite to rely on the dicta by the Supreme Court in

5
(2024) 6 SCC 401


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:11
REVIEW PET. 391/2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026 Page 4 of 9

6
Jitender @ Kalla v. State of GNCTD & Ors. , wherein the relevant
paragraph pertaining to the obligations of an Advocate-on-record to ensure
full disclosure by the client is recorded. The same principle applies equally
to a filing counsel appearing before the High Court, and the relevant
paragraph reads as under: -
“ 48.1. When a petition/appeal is not drafted by the Advocate-on-Record, the
Advocate-on-Record who files it is entirely and wholly responsible to this
Court. Therefore, when an Advocate-on-Record receives a draft of a
petition/appeal/counter-affidavit from any other advocate, it is his duty to go
through the case papers and, thereafter, to carefully go through the
petition/appeal/counter-affidavit to ascertain whether correct facts have been
stated in the draft and whether all relevant documents are annexed to the
petition/appeal/counter-affidavit. After reading the case papers, if he has any
doubt, he must get the doubt clarified either by contacting the client or his
local advocate. He is responsible for ensuring that he gets correct factual
instructions so that there is no suppression of facts while filing
petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits . An Advocate-on-Record is
answerable to this Court since he has a unique position under the 2013
Rules. Therefore, when incorrect facts are stated in the
petition/appeal/counter-affidavit or when material facts or documents
are suppressed, the Advocate-on-Record cannot shift the entire blame
on either the client or his instructing advocates. Therefore, it is his duty
to be cautious and careful. His duty is to file proper proceedings and
affidavits before this Court to assist the Court in dispensing justice. He
must always be fair to the Court and effectively assist the Court in
deciding cases. The duty of the Advocate-on-Record does not end after
filing a case or a counter. Even if the counsel appointed by him is not
present, he must be ready with the case on law and facts and effectively
assist the Court;”
[Emphasis Supplied]

6.6. The legal duty to scrutinise the documents before filing them with the
plaint cannot be disclaimed by the counsel on the ground that the client
failed to disclose the said documents. For the same reason, the averments
made at paragraph no. 2 of the review petition to excuse the inaction would

6
(2025) 10 SCC 705


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:11
REVIEW PET. 391/2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026 Page 5 of 9

also not discharge the filing counsel of its obligation to ensure full
disclosure.
6.7. We therefore find no ground to review our findings on this
submission.
7. At paragraph no. 5 of this review petition, the applicant has further
impugned the finding of this Court in the impugned judgment with respect
to the materiality of the legal notice dated 29.10.2025 and the objections
dated 27.01.2026 filed before the Registrar of Trademarks. It is also
contended that its non-disclosure ought not to have resulted in dismissal of
the interim injunction application and imposition of costs. Similarly, at
paragraph no. 6 of the review petition, the applicant seeks to challenge the
distinction drawn by us in the impugned judgment with respect to another
judgment titled Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v. Anchor Consumer Products
7
Private Limited relied upon by the respondent.
7.1. In our considered view, the said averments in paragraph nos. 5 and 6
seek to challenge the findings of the impugned judgment on the merits and
fall outside the purview of the review jurisdiction. Also, the said findings on
merits cannot be challenged in a review petition filed by the filing counsel in
his personal capacity. Notwithstanding the above, we find no ground to
review our findings on the materiality of the suppressed documents on the
pleas urged by the counsel.
8. At paragraph no. 3 of this review petition, the applicant has made a
peculiar submission. A reference has been made to a judgment dated


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:11
REVIEW PET. 391/2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026 Page 6 of 9

24.03.2026 passed by one of us [Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.] as a
Single Judge in CS(COMM) 480/2024 titled Britannia Industries Limited
8
v. Rajat Chawla [hereinafter referred to as ‘ Rajat Chawla ’]. In the said
judgment, the Single Judge dismissed the interim injunction application
against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. The applicant contends
that while passing the said judgment of Rajat Chawla (supra), the Single
Judge relied upon a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench dated 05.04.2021,
9
passed in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd. & Ors. [hereinafter
referred to as ‘ ITC Ltd .’] as a precedent. It is contended that the said
judgment in ITC Ltd. (supra) had, however, been set aside by the Division
Bench in FAO(OS)(COMM) 65/2021 vide judgment dated 04.08.2021, with
the consent of the parties. It is contended that, therefore, the reliance placed
by the Single Judge on the said judgment was erroneous. It is pleaded that
this illustration of Rajat Chawla (supra) has been cited as a parallel of
inadvertent reliance also by the Single Judge in relying on a set aside
precedent.
It is contended that similarly the non-disclosure of the legal notice
dated 29.10.2025 and the objections dated 27.01.2026 in the plaint should be
considered as an instance of inadvertence and not a pattern of wilful
suppression.
8.1. In our considered opinion, there is no parallel in the wilful act of
suppression of documents by the respondent in the plaint which is the
subject matter of this appeal and the judgment rendered by the Single Judge

7
2026:DHC:5852-DB
8
2026 SCC OnLine Del 1618
9
2021:DHC:2326-DB


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:11
REVIEW PET. 391/2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026 Page 7 of 9

in Rajat Chawla (supra) by referring to ITC Ltd. (supra). In fact, since one
of us is the author of the said judgment, based on the record of the case of
Rajat Chawla (supra), it is seen that the said judgment of ITC Ltd. (supra)
was expressly relied upon by the defendant therein in support of its defence.
The fact that the said judgment of ITC Ltd. (supra) had been set aside by
the Division Bench, with the consent of the parties therein, was not brought
to the attention of the Single Judge by either party or the counsel therein.
Mr. Sachin Gupta, who was the counsel for the plaintiff therein, never raised
any such plea before the Single Judge that ITC Ltd. (supra) has been set
aside in the appeal proceedings. Be that as it may, the correctness or
otherwise of the said judgment in Rajat Chawla (supra) will be decided in
its own proceedings. The reference to the proceedings of Rajat Chawla
(supra) suit is irrelevant to the present proceedings and cannot form a basis
of a review.
9. In view of our findings above, we find that no ground is made out to
review paragraph nos. 45 to 53 of the impugned judgment.
10. As regards the last two sentences of paragraph no. 56, whereby costs
have been imposed on the respondent for the wilful suppression, we find that
the present review petition, having been preferred by the counsel on record
in his personal capacity, is not maintainable insofar as it seeks review of the
said direction. The counsel, in his personal capacity, has no locus to seek
review of an order imposing costs upon the respondent.
11. We note with disappointment that the contents of the review petition
reflect a continuing lack of acknowledgement by the filing counsel of his


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:11
REVIEW PET. 391/2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026 Page 8 of 9

responsibility as an officer of the Court to ensure full disclosure in a plaint.
The applicant fails to accept accountability and instead seeks to apportion
the blame to the junior colleagues and the client for the non-disclosure as
some kind of justification. In this regard, we can only reiterate our findings
in the impugned judgment where we held that, in the light of the established
suppression, not vacating the interim injunction would be against the interest
of the judicial process.
12. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J


V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
AUGUST 31, 2026 /hp/aa


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:11
REVIEW PET. 391/2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026 Page 9 of 9