Indiamart Intermesh Limited vs Ram Avtar Chamria & Ors.

$~224
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 5 November, 2026
th
Uploaded on : 10 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010538082026
+ FAO (COMM) 334/2026, CM APPL. 77450/2026, CM APPL.
77451/2026, CM APPL. 77452/2026 & CM APPL. 77453/2026
INDIAMART INTERMESH LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr Naman Joshi and Ms. Priya Goyal,
Adv. (M: 9953785515)
versus
RAM AVTAR CHAMRIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-IndiaMart
Intermesh Ltd. under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (hereinafter ‘ the Act ’) read with Section 13(1A) of the Commercial
th
Courts Act, 2015 against the impugned order dated 16 September, 2026
passed by the ld. District Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in
OMP(I)COMM) No. 2856/2026 titled Ram Avtar Chamria & Anr. vs. Sh.
Kamal Kumar Chamria & Ors.
3. The background of the matter is that a petition under Section 9 of the
Act (hereinafter ‘ Petition ’) was filed by Mr. Ram Avtar Chamria and Mr.
Rakesh Chamria against Mr. Kamal Kumar Chamria, one of the brothers and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
FAO (COMM) 334/2026 Page 1 of 9

various other e-commerce companies.
4. The allegation in the Petition was that there was a family settlement
th
executed on 24 January, 1998 between the family members and that Mr.
Kamal Kumar Chamria was violating the said settlement by offering products
on e-commerce platforms.
5. In the said Petition, the conclusion of the Commercial Court vide the
impugned order is as under:
“27.In view of above discussions, the petition under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
is partly allowed and the respondent no. 1 is restrained
from acting personally or through his agents,
representatives, employees, family members,
proprietorship concerns, companies or entities under
his control, including VNG Chamria Ayurved Lab Pvt.
Ltd and Surya Reliable, during the pendency of the
arbitral proceedings, from manufacturing, marketing,
selling, dispatching or supplying the products covered
by the Family Deed dated 24.01.1998, bearing the
disputed family name/trade marks, within the territories
of Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu
& Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Chandigarh, contrary to
the territorial arrangement contained in the said Family
Deed. The Respondent No.1 is further restrained from
accepting or fulfilling online orders for such products
where the delivery address falls within the aforesaid
territories.
28.Respondent Nos.2 to 3& 6 shall, to the extent
technically feasible and subject to their applicable
procedures, take reasonable steps, upon receipt of the
requisite particulars/product identification from the
petitioners, to prevent or disable delivery/ fulfillment of
the identified products of respondent No.1 to addresses
falling within the aforesaid territories.
29.It is submitted on behalf of respondent no.5
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
FAO (COMM) 334/2026 Page 2 of 9

IndiaMART Intermesh Limited that it functions as a
neutral intermediary offering listing services, not as an
ecommerce operator. As such, it is directed that
IndiaMART must promptly remove all infringing listings
upon receiving notice and follow effective due diligence
mechanisms.
30. The present order shall not be construed as directing
blanket delisting of the entire product
catalogue/storefront of respondent No.1, nor as a final
finding regarding the ownership, validity or
infringement of any trademark.
31. The petitioners shall commence the arbitral
proceedings within the period prescribed under Section
9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
32. The observations made in this order are for the
limited purpose of deciding the present petition under
Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
shall not prejudice the parties in the arbitral
proceedings or in any other proceedings concerning the
subject matter.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.”
6. As can be seen from the above order, the Commercial Court had
actually granted an injunction in favour of the Petitioners/Respondent herein
vide the impugned order and had directed Mr. Kamal Kumar Chamria to abide
by the family settlement during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings.
7. The Commercial Court had rendered the following findings:
“10. The petitioners have further placed on record
material relating to the online presence of the products,
including listings on Amazon and Flipkart, B2B listings
on IndiaMART, Tradelndia and Shopsy and social-
media promotion. The documents specifically refer to
Amazon/Flipkart listings, including ASINs
B096BFJQ5V and B0DSM LSCV9, besides other
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
FAO (COMM) 334/2026 Page 3 of 9

product listings. On the basis of these alleged acts that
the petitioners contend that respondent No.I is
continuing to violate the territorial restrictions
contained in the Family Deed and that immediate
interim protection is necessary pending commencement
and conclusion of arbitral proceedings.
xxx
15. The documents filed on record refers to a tax invoice
dated 15.04.2023 issued by Surya Reliable to Sabar
Traders, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Another invoice dated
17.02.2024 has also been relied upon. The prima facie
material indicating that products connected with
respondent No.l's business were supplied to a trader
located in Delhi, which falls within the territory
claimedby the petitioners. The petitioners have also
produced online material showing product listings on
Amazon and Flipkart and B2B listings on lndiaMART,
Tradelndia and Shopsy.
16.At this stage, this Court is not required to determine
whether each individual online listing necessarily
resulted in an actual sale or delivery into a petitioners'
territory.
17.In the present case, the petitioners are not seeking a
final declaration regarding ownership of the
trademarks or a final adjudication of infringement.
Their immediate grievance is that respondent No.I
should not be permitted to continue conduct which,
prima facie, is contrary to the territorial arrangement
recorded in the Family Deed while the arbitral dispute
is pending and such a protection would preserve the
existing contractual arrangement rather than finally
determine the rights of either party.
18.The interim restraint sought against respondent no.I
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
FAO (COMM) 334/2026 Page 4 of 9

does not prevent him from carrying on his business
altogether. It merely requires him to abide, during the
interim period, by the territorial arrangement which the
parties had reduced into writing.
19.If the sale is permitted to be continued in the
petitioners' territory, the petitioners shall suffer dilution
of their market and there would be a question of loss of
goodwill and erosion of an agreed territorial market
which would be become difficult to quantify with
precision after the event.
22.Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajeev Behl v. Bhupesh
Kumar Dhingra & Ors., 2026 sec OnLine Del 4950, has
held that Section 9 does not expressly restrict every
protective order to parties to the arbitration agreement.
It has been held that:
53. Law in this regard is very clear that the scope of
power of a Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act
is not limited to parties to an arbitration agreement. The
Court has the authority to issue interim directions even
against a third party. The Courts have recognised time
and again that the purpose of Section 9 of the
Arbitration Act is to aid arbitration between the parties.
The interim orders passed by the Court are with regard
to subject matter of arbitration and thus, while
exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act;
relevant directions can also be passed against a non-
signatory to the arbitration agreement
23.In the above noted case, the Hon'ble Court also
emphasised that relief directed specifically against a
third party must be exercised sparingly and must remain
connected with the subject matter of the arbitration.
24.In view of the above discussions, a direction for
complete delisting of all products from all platforms
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
FAO (COMM) 334/2026 Page 5 of 9

would, at this stage, be disproportionate. It may also
affect products, territories and transactions which may
ultimately be found to be permissible.
25. Thus, it would be appropriate to direct respondents
no.2 to 6, subject to their technical capability and
applicable law, to take reasonable steps to
prevent/disable delivery of the identified products of
respondent No.1 to addresses falling within the
petitioners' protected territories, rather than directing a
blanket delisting.”
8. As a consequential order, the following e-commerce platforms have
been directed to take reasonable steps to remove the infringing listings:
(i) Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.
(ii) Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.
(iii) Shopsy Private Limited
(iv) Indiamart Intermesh Limited
(v) Infocom Network Limited (TradeIndia)
9. Presently, this Court is not concerned with the merits of the injunction
granted vide the impugned order.
10. The challenge to the Petition by the Appellant, is that an undue burden
has been imposed upon IndiaMart to take down all infringing listings without
any identification of the URLs and the specific products, etc.
11. The submission of Mr. Joshi, ld. Counsel for the Appellant is that the
Appellant cannot be imposed with such a burden without any proper clarity
as the Court has not directed delisting of the entire product catalogue of Mr.
Kamal Kumar Chamria but only the infringing listings.
12. The grievance of the Appellant, who is running an e-commerce/ a
listing platform, is that the proper identification of the URLs ought to be there
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
FAO (COMM) 334/2026 Page 6 of 9

so that it can give effect to the impugned order.
13. Heard. In the opinion of this Court, the Appellant would not be entitled
to make any submissions on the merits of the injunction. The only role of
Appellant would be to remove and delist the infringing listings.
14. In Metro Shoes Ltd. v. Tolexo Online (P) Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom
9998 a ld. Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, under similar
circumstances had directed as follows –
“2. The defendants have filed an Affidavit in Reply. In
this, they make it clear that they are not purporting to
use the mark in question. They do not manufacture
goods. They do not use that mark as a trade mark or
otherwise. Their role is that of an intermediary or a
portal. That is their limited involvement. Third party
vendors put their products for display of availability on
the defendants' website. When orders are placed, these
are done directly by end-users with the vendors in
question. The defendants thus only facilitate commercial
transactions.
3. As far as this particular mark is concerned, i.e.,
METRO used in relation to safety shoes, the defendants
state that the mark and products are no longer being
shown on their web portal and website. The defendants
will within two weeks from the date of this order provide
the advocates for the plaintiffs with the contact details
of the vendor, person or entity that had placed the suit
products and marks on the defendants' website.
4. These statements are all noted and accepted.
5. For future, the defendants make it clear that they are
unable to censor or police the portal and cannot give
any undertaking or commitment to remove all marks
bearing the word METRO . However, if the plaintiffs or
their advocates communicate with the defendants or
their advocates, the contact details of the particular
vendor in question will be furnished to the plaintiffs'
advocates within seven working days of the demand
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
FAO (COMM) 334/2026 Page 7 of 9

being received. It will then be for the plaintiffs to obtain
suitable orders against the vendor directly, it being
made clear that the present defendants carry no liability
for actual use or deployment of the mark.
6. The notice of motion is disposed of in these terms
against these defendants. Liberty to the plaintiffs to file
a fresh notice of motion against the actual vendor of the
mark once the information is received and once the
plaint is amended.”
15. In Happi Planet Eco Products (P) Ltd. v. Ravi Malani Trading As
Febway India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 351 the Court had directed as follows
while granting a dynamic injunction–
“17. Predicated on the above, the following directions
are necessitated:
a. The defendant nos. 1 to 7 and all persons acting for
or on their behalf are restrained from using in any
manner plaintiff's well-known brand trademarks
“Happi Planet” and the distinctive
packaging/proprietary trade dress, details of which are
provided in para 15(a) of the plaint suit, including inter
alia HAPPY PLANET,
HIPIPA PLANET
et al, and/or plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work,
packaging and trade dress, details of which are
provided in para 15(b) of the plaint suit.
b. The defendant nos. 8 to 11 and all persons acting for
or on their behalf are directed to block and/or suspend
the infringing listings including the listings mentioned
in para 19 of the plaint suit and to delist and/or black-
list the defendants and any other third party, which
found to be infringing upon/violating the plaintiff's
intellectual properties, and brand reputation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
FAO (COMM) 334/2026 Page 8 of 9

c. It is further directed that defendant nos. 8 to 11 to take
down the infringing listings forthwith and since the
injunction is dynamic in nature, the plaintiff is permitted
to furnish any such infringing listings directly to the
aforementioned e-commerce platforms namely Amazon,
Flipkart, Meesho and Jiomart without approaching this
Court. If any infringing listings are forwarded, the
defendant nos. 8 to 11 namely Amazon, Flipkart,
Meesho and Jiomart, shall take down the infringing
listings forthwith. The defendant nos. 8 to 11 are also
directed to furnish to the Court as also the plaintiff the
Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) details, by way of a
compliance affidavit to be filed within two weeks from
today.”
16. Accordingly, Courts have usually directed Plaintiffs or persons
aggrieved to furnish the list of the links to be removed.
17. In the present matter, If there is any ambiguity in respect of which
infringing listings are to be taken down, the purpose of the Appellant would
be sufficiently served if it is permitted to move an application seeking
clarification of the same from the said Commercial Court.
18. With these observations, the present appeal is disposed of giving liberty
to the Appellant to approach the same Commercial Court for clarification or
modification, if required. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DINESH BHATT
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 5, 2026
dj/as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:12:04
FAO (COMM) 334/2026 Page 9 of 9