Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Kwick Living (I) Private Limited

Court
Delhi High Court

$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 02.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010405482026
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 231/2026 CM APPL. 58256/2026
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayyar and Mr. Amit Sibal,
Sr. Advocates with Mr. Saikrishna
Rajagopal, Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Mr.
Nitin Sharma, Ms. Sneha Jain, Mr.
Vivek Ayyagari, Mr. Abhinav Bhalla,
Mr. Abhay Aren, Mr. Saksham
Dhingra, Ms. Smriti Nair, Ms.
Monjira Dasgupta and Ms. Shreyas
Maheshwari, Advocates

versus

KWICK LIVING (I) PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Mr.
Prithvi Singh, Ms. Janhvi Chadha,
Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, Mr. Krtin
Bhasin and Ms. Annanya Mehan,
Advocates

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

1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 25.08.2026
[‘impugned order’] passed by the learned Single Judge declining to
adjudicate the reliefs prayed for in the interim application I.A. 22515/2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 231/2026 Page 1 of 7

filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[‘CPC’] on merits, in view of the doubts expressed on the lack of territorial
jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi to hear the underlying suit. The impugned
order reads as under:

“ I.A.22515/2026
Parties had been heard at length on the issue of territorial jurisdiction
of this court to entertain the present suit; and judgment was reserved on
24.08.2026. Judgment on the issue has been pronounced today. This court
has considered it appropriate to refer certain questions relating to territorial
jurisdiction for consideration and determination by a Larger Bench.
In light of the above, this court is of the view that, at this stage, no
interim relief can be granted to the plaintiff when the very
maintainability of the suit before this court is in question.
CS(COMM) 904/2026
Accordingly, awaiting the view of the Larger Bench, re-notify on
11th September 2026.”
[Emphasis supplied]
2. It is stated that by a separate order of even date the learned Single
Judge has made a reference to the Larger Bench [‘reference order’] for
inviting an authoritative view inter-alia on the relevant provision(s)
governing territorial jurisdiction of the Court on the original side with
reference to Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or Section 62 of
the Copyright Act, 1957 or Section 20 CPC or the interplay of these
provisions. The questions are set out at paragraph no. 53 of the said
judgment.
3. The Appellant contends that the reference order has not been
challenged in this appeal as no appeal is maintainable against the said order.
3.1. The Appellant contends that the finding of the learned Single Judge
that the territorial jurisdiction of the Court is doubtful is incorrect in the facts
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 231/2026 Page 2 of 7

of this case. The Appellant relies upon the fact that as a part of the impugned
advertising campaign launched by the Respondent, physical hoardings have
been erected at Delhi. The Appellant states that the photographs of the
hoarding were duly brought on record vide order dated 19.08.2026. It is
contended that several other hoardings have come up in the city of Delhi and
therefore clearly the cause of action has arisen at Delhi. Consequently, this
Court has the necessary territorial jurisdiction.
4. Since the learned Single Judge in the impugned order passed in I.A.
22515/2026 has declined to adjudicate the application on the ground that the
maintainability of the underlying suit on the issue of territorial jurisdiction is
in question, we deem it appropriate to refer to the submissions of the
Respondent recorded in the reference order for raising the said objection.
5. The reference order records the submission raised by the Respondent
objecting to the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi on the plea that
in the plaint, though there is an averment that goods of the defendant are
available for sale in Delhi, the plaintiff has not placed on record any bill or
invoice to show that the products of the defendant had actually been sold in
Delhi. The Respondent also contended that the memo of parties
accompanying the plaint shows that the defendant’s registered office is at
Mumbai. The Respondent contended that since the Appellant has its
registered office at Mumbai and the Respondent has its registered office at
Mumbai, the suit ought to have been filed at Mumbai in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 231/2026 Page 3 of 7

1
Limited v. Sanjay Dalia . The Respondent also contended that in the plaint
there is no averment that through the digital platforms accessible in Delhi,
the defendant has purposefully availed the jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi
for selling its goods and therefore the plaint ought to be returned for lack of
territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
6. To summarize, the Respondent raised two submissions before the
learned Single Judge for objecting to the territorial jurisdiction. It contended
that the averments made in the plaint fail to disclose that any cause of action
has arisen at Delhi or that the defendant sells its goods in Delhi. It relied
upon the fact that as per the memo of parties itself the Respondent’s
registered office is at Mumbai.
7. This matter was heard by us on 31.08.2026 and in response to a query
from this Court, the Respondent filed an Affidavit dated 01.09.2026
confirming that it holds a GST registration in Delhi, with a principal place of
business declared at Naraina Industrial Area to the statutory authorities. The
said Affidavit is directed to be taken on record.
8. Mr. Lall, learned senior counsel for the Respondent, also submitted on
instruction that the hoardings carrying the impugned advertisement
campaign were put up in Delhi on 14.08.2026. He also confirmed that
Respondent sells its products in Delhi.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts admitted by the Respondent, in our
considered view the submission of the Respondent that the Courts at Delhi

1
(2015) 10 SCC 161
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 231/2026 Page 4 of 7

do not have territorial jurisdiction is without any merit, as the conditions of
Section 20(a) as well as 20(c) of CPC are duly satisfied in this case. The
admitted facts are that hoardings carrying the impugned advertisement
campaign were erected at Delhi prior to the date of institution of the suit,
thus the cause of action has indisputably arisen at Delhi, and in light of the
declaration of principal place of business at Naraina made by the
Respondent before the GST authorities, the Respondent undoubtedly carries
on business at Delhi at the time of the commencement of the suit.
10. At this stage, Mr. Lall, learned senior counsel, on instructions stated
that, however, since the issue of territorial jurisdiction has to be decided on
the basis of the facts pleaded in the plaint, the Appellant would have to
formally amend the plaint to incorporate the said two facts. He submitted
that the Appellant may file an amended plaint limited to these two
amendments and the matter be remanded to the learned Single Judge for
deciding I.A. 22515/2026 on merits. He stated that the Appellate Court
ought not to adjudicate on merits of the dispute and permit the learned
Single Judge to take the first view on the merits. In this regard, he relied
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyam Sel and Power Limited
2
v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited and relied upon the observations
therein regarding the contours of the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court
against an order passed by a Single Judge postponing the hearing of an
interim injunction application.
11. In response, Mr. Nayar and Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel for the

2
(2023) 1 SCC 634
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 231/2026 Page 5 of 7

Appellant, state that since urgent interim reliefs have been prayed and the
impugned advertisement campaign is causing substantial damage to the
goodwill of the Appellant’s product, this Court may consider granting ad-
interim injunction and thereafter post the matter for further hearing before
the learned Single Judge.
12. We are not inclined to adjudicate on the merits of the rival claims and
deem it appropriate to refer the matter back to the learned Single Judge for
deciding I.A. No. 22515/2026 on merits. It would be appropriate that the
learned Single Judge decides the application on merits since it is the Court
of first instance.
13. We have been informed that the Appellant had completed their oral
submission on merits of the interim relief prayed for before the order was
reserved on 24.08.2026. Mr. Lall, learned senior counsel for the Respondent,
states that he will address and conclude his reply submissions on merits
within 45 minutes. Mr. Nayar and Mr. Sibal state that they will address
rejoinder submissions, if any, and conclude within 15 minutes. The parties
jointly request that the matter be listed before the learned Single Judge on
03.09.2026 to enable them to complete their submissions on merits so as to
invite an early adjudication of the application.
14. Keeping in view our findings on the existence of the territorial
jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi to entertain and try the underlying suit, we
direct that the suit be listed before the learned Single Judge on 03.09.2026
for hearing and deciding I.A. No. 22515/2026 on merits.
15. The Appellant is directed to file its amended plaint limited to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 231/2026 Page 6 of 7

incorporating the two facts enlisted at paragraph no. 9 of this order. The
proposed amendments be carried as paragraph nos. 152(A) and 157(A)
respectively in the plaint. The requirement of filing a formal application for
amending the plaint is dispensed with. Except the aforesaid amendment, no
other amendment will be carried out to the plaint in pursuance to the leave
granted by this order. The Respondent has consented to the aforesaid leave
granted to the Appellant.
16. We clarify that the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Court has
been decided by us finally and will not be permitted to be re-agitated by the
Respondent before the learned Single Judge. We also clarify that we have
not expressed any opinion on the reference order dated 25.08.2026 as it is
not the subject matter of the present appeal.
17. The registry is directed to list the suit CS (COMM) 904/2026 before
the learned Single Judge on 03.09.2026.
18. We request the learned Single Judge to hear and decide the
application expeditiously.
19. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Pending
applications stand disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J



MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 /hp/aa
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:02.09.2026
16:46
FAO(OS) (COMM) 231/2026 Page 7 of 7