CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED vs INOX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/AO/68/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 68 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 68 of 2026
=============================================
CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
INOX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. KAMAL B. TRIVEDI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR. SHALIN
MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR C B UPADHYAYA with MR.
VINAY BAIGARA with MR. UTSAV SHUKLA with MR. KIRTAN
MISTRY(3508) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR. MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS. SMRITI YADAV
with MR. DHIREN KARANIA with MR. MR. AADIT R
SANJANWALA(9918) for the Respondent(s) No. 1MR. KAMAL B.
TRIVEDI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR. SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE MR C B UPADHYAYA with MR. VINAY BAIGARA with
MR. UTSAV SHUKLA with MR. KIRTAN MISTRY(3508) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR. MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS. SMRITI YADAV
with MR. DHIREN KARANIA with MR. MR. AADIT R
SANJANWALA(9918) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. HARSHIT TOLIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR NIRAG N
PATHAK(5622) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 07/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This Appeal from Order under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 13 of the
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 17:07:41 IST 2026
C/AO/68/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
Commerical Courts Act, 2015 is directed against the order
dated 11.06.2025 below exhibit 5 under Order XXXIX Rules 1
th
and 2 in Trade Mark Suit No.3 of 2019 passed by the 6
Additional District Judge, at Vadodara, the designated
Commercial Court.
2. Heard Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate with
Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for Mr. C. B.
Upadhyaya, learned advocate for the appellants, Mr. Mihir
Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aadit Sanjanwala, learned
advocate for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Harshit Tolia,
learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Nirag N. Pathak, learned
advocate for the respondent no. 2.
3. Amongst various arguments made by Mr. Kamal B.
Trivedi, learned Senior advocate along with Mr. Shalin N.
Mehta, learned Senior advocate with the assisting advocates
for the appellants, the main thrust of argument is that no
prima facie case can be said to have been made out by the
plaintiff for more than one reasons. The plaintiff was
required to prove that Proprietary Engineering Drawings are
original in terms of Section 13(1)(a) of the Copy Right Act,
as :-
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 17:07:41 IST 2026
C/AO/68/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
(i) artistic works ;
(ii) literary works.
4. The design of cryogenic semi-trailers and LNG semi-
trailers are in the public domain as the specification thereof
has been provided in the Static and Mobile Pressure Vessel
(unfired) Rules of 2016. The contention is that when the
designs and drawings are in public domain and Cryogenic
Semi-trailers mainly LNG Storage and Distribution System
mounted on LNG Semi-trailers have to confirm to the
specifications of the entire vehicle including inner vessel as
per the Rules, 2016, no claim of the plaintiff about the
alleged Proprietary Engineering Drawings being the original
artistic work was entertainable.
5. Moreover, the case of the plaintiff that it has acquired
US based Company and purchased the technology, the know-
how, drawings and entire Intellectual Property (IP) in relation
to manufacturing of Cryogenic Storage Tanks and
Distribution Systems mounted on Trailers and Semi-trailers
was not proved by bringing any such agreement on record.
Not a word, how did they get the IP from US Company apart
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 17:07:41 IST 2026
C/AO/68/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
from the annual report which shows only investment made by
the plaintiff, can be gathered from the record.
6. The case of the plaintiff that they have improvised the IP
taken from the US company has not been established by
bringing on record the evidence which should establish the
creations made by the plaintiff to the IP, allegedly purchased
by it with the acquisition of US based Company. The
submissions is that the plaintiff could only establish that it
has invested in the US based Company and the arguments
with regard to the purchase of IP and subsequent
improvisation thereto to cover the Proprietary Engineering,
Drawings as the original artistic work cannot be
substantiated from any material on record.
7. It was further argued that the Proprietary Engineering
Designs drawings are designs within the meaning of Section
2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 and in view of Section 15(2) of
the Copyrights Act, 1957, as soon as the design has been
made applicable to any article which has been reproduced
more than fifty times by an industrial process by the owner of
the copyright, the copyright shall not subsist under the Act in
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 17:07:41 IST 2026
C/AO/68/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
any such design, which is capable of being registered under
the Designs Act, 2000, but has not been so registered.
8. Further, Section 52(1)(w) of the Copyrights Act, 1957
has been pressed into service to submit that the act of
making of a three-dimensional object from a two-dimensional
artistic work, such as a technical drawing, for the purposes of
industrial application of any purely functional part of a useful
device shall not construe an infringement of copyright.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and
carefully perused the record and the judgment impugned, we
do not find it a fit case to interfere in the decision of the Trial
Court for grant of an interim injunction restraining the
defendants in terms of the relief prayed in paragraph no. 37
of the plaint, till the disposal of the suit. In view of the
reasoning given by the trial Court, being the Appellate Court,
it is neither possible nor permissible for us to conduct a mini-
trial to ascertain the weight of the arguments of the learned
Senior Counsels for the appellants to substitute the view
taken by the trial Court that the plaintiff has proved a prima
facie case and balance of convenience tilts in favour of the
plaintiff. Since, two ingredients of a prima facie case and the
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 17:07:41 IST 2026
C/AO/68/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
balance of convenience are met in the facts and
circumstances of the present case as elaborately discussed in
the judgement of the trial Court, the arguments made by the
learned Senior Counsels about the irreparable loss being
caused to the defendants on account of the prohibitory
injunction/restraint put forth by the trial court in the interim
injunction order would be of no relevance.
10. Even otherwise, in the instant case, the Apex court vide
judgment and order dated 15.04.2025 passed in Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 28062 of 2024 with Special Writ
Petition (C) No. 28017 of 2024, while upholding the order of
rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the appellant
herein(defendant therein) has categorically directed the trial
court to conclude the trial within a period of one year from
the date of its decision. It is further brought before us that
on a request made by the Presiding Officer, Commercial
Court vide letter dated 10.04.2026, six (6) months further
time has been granted to decide the instant suit namely
Trade Mark Suit No. 3 of 2019, with the clarification that no
further extension shall be granted. The time granted by the
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 17:07:41 IST 2026
C/AO/68/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
Apex Court to conduct the trial would be completed by the
month of October 2026.
11. On a query made by the Court, the learned Senior
Counsels for the parties would submit that the suit is at the
stage of evidence and it is submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent herein/plaintiff that the
examination-in-chief of the plaintiff is complete and the
defendant no. 1 has also filed its oral evidence in chief.
12. Taking note of the above, while refusing to interfere in
the judgment of the Commercial Court under challenge for
grant of interim injunction, we dispose of the present appeal
with the direction that the trial court shall abide by the
directions contained in the judgment and order dated
15.04.2025 passed by the Apex court in the conduct of the
trial and shall conclude the trial within the time prescribed
by the Apex Court, without granting any unnecessary
adjournments to any of the parties.
13. It needs no clarification that the trial court shall have to
independently deal with the evidence of the parties during
the conduct of the trial and in view of the observations made
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 17:07:41 IST 2026
C/AO/68/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
in paragraph no. ‘32’ of the judgment impugned, itself, no
further clarification is required.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
VARSHA DESAI/BIJOY
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 17:07:41 IST 2026