SRI BHARATH REDDY vs M/S NAGARJUNA GROUP OF RESTAURANTS
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 27611 of 2026
Reserved on: 09.09.2026
Pronounced on: 03.11.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27611 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BHARATH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
OWNER OF NAGRAJUNA
THE ANDHRA STYLE HOTEL,
RUNNING ITS BUSINESS AT
NEAR SBI, BELLANDUR,
BANGALORE-560103.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S NAGARJUNA GROUP OF RESTAURANTS
EARLIER IT WAS
M/S NAGARJUNA GROUP OF HOTELS
OPERATED BY ANNAPOORNA ENTERPRISES,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED TRADE
MARK NO.2423178,
ADD/AT NO.195, DOUBLE ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560038.
ALSO AT
NO.44/1, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BUSINESS OPERATONS,
BANGALORE NO.162, 80 FEET ROAD
4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
WP No. 27611 of 2026
BANGALORE - 560034
GST NO.29AACFA1961A1ZY
PAN NO. AACFA1961A,
REP BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER AND
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
SRI. K RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K. RAMAIAH.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED
LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
COMMERCIAL COURT (CCH-85) DATED- 12/08/2026 ON I.A.
NO.9 FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 IN O.S. NO.1536/2024
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF, AS PER THE COPY OF
THE ORDER IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING :
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. ORDER
This petition is filed impugning the order dated
12.08.2026 passed by the Commercial Court in Com. O.S.
No.1536/2024, whereby I.A. No.9 filed under Order VI Rule 17
read with Section 151 of the CPC came to be allowed.
2. The plaintiff instituted the commercial suit seeking, inter
alia, a direction to the defendant or its agents not to use the
trade name ‘Nagrajuna’, which is alleged to be similar to the
- 3 -
WP No. 27611 of 2026
plaintiff’s trade name ‘Nagarjuna Andhra Style 1984’, and for
other reliefs.
2.1 After commencement of the trial, the plaintiff filed an
application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking deletion
of the words “Andhra Style” and substitution thereof with the
words “plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘Nagarjuna 1984’”. It is
stated in the application that the proposed amendment would
neither alter the cause of action nor take away any admissions
already made, and would not introduce new cause of actions.
The Trial Court accepted the application and permitted the
amendment.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the entire plaint is founded on the premise that the plaintiff’s
registered copyright is “Nagarjuna Andhra Style 1984”,
whereas, by way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiff now
seeks to restrict the trademark to “Nagarjuna 1984”. It is
submitted that the petitioner is carrying on business in the
name of “Nagrajuna Andhra Style”. Learned counsel further
submits that the amendment so permitted would alter the
entire basis of the suit and would consequently affect the
evidence already on record, including to the extent of taking
- 4 -
WP No. 27611 of 2026
away the admissions made by the plaintiff. It is further
submitted that the Trial Court can adjudicate the suit even
without permitting the said amendment.
3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his
submissions, placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the following cases:
1
i) Basavaraj v. Indira and Others ;
ii) Vidyabai and Others v. Padmalatha and
2
Another ; and
(ii) Revajeetu Builders and Developers v.
3
Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others .
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that the plaintiff’s copyright was stated as “Nagarjuna
Andhra Style 1984” due to an oversight and typographical
error. It is submitted that the entire case of the plaintiff is
founded on the registered trademark “Nagarjuna 1984”. It is
further submitted that the proposed amendment neither alters
the cause of action, takes away any admission, nor enlarges
1
Civil Appeal No.2886/2012
2
(2009) 2 SCC 409
3
(2009) 10 SCC 84
- 5 -
WP No. 27611 of 2026
the scope of the suit. The amendment is necessary to bring the
pleadings in conformity with the registered trademark. Learned
counsel further submits that, in view of the amendment, the
plaintiff is not even seeking leave of the Court to adduce
further evidence. The Trial Court, having considered the above
aspects, has rightly allowed the application.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the writ papers.
6. The suit in question is instituted to resolve the dispute
relating to the trademark. The plaintiff claims to have a
registered trademark as “Nagarjuna Andhra Style 1984”. It is
alleged that the defendant is carrying on business under the
name “Nagrajuna Andhra Style”, which is phonetically similar to
the plaintiff’s trademark and, therefore, amounts to
infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark “Nagarjuna
Andhra Style 1984”.
6.1 The defendant-petitioner has taken a specific stand in the
written statement that “Andhra Style” does not form part of the
plaintiff’s registered trademark. The written statement also
refers to the colour of the registered trademark to contend that
there is no infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark.
- 6 -
WP No. 27611 of 2026
6.2 The controversy arising in the application is, therefore,
very limited. For whatever reason, the plaintiff has claimed its
registered trademark to be “Nagarjuna Andhra Style 1984”, in
support of which a certificate issued by the competent authority
has been produced.
6.3 The Trial Court, in addition to the pleadings of the
respective parties, necessarily has to examine the registered
trademark, on the basis of which the controversy between the
parties is required to be adjudicated. No doubt, the entire
pleadings are based on the registered trademark “Nagarjuna
Andhra Style 1984”, which is now sought to be restricted to
“Nagarjuna 1984”. Such amendment would result in a
correction of the pleadings. However, the said correction would
neither introduce a new cause of action nor alter the scope of
the suit, nor would it have the effect of taking away any
admission made by the plaintiff.
6.4 Moreover, the amendment permitted would bring the
pleadings in conformity with the registered trademark. This
would assist the Court in effectively and comprehensively
adjudicating the dispute. Further, in view of the categorical
submission made by learned counsel for the respondent-
- 7 -
WP No. 27611 of 2026
plaintiff that no further evidence would be led in view of the
amendment, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-
defendant.
6.5 It is a settled position of law that an amendment to the
pleadings should be permitted if it is necessary for the
complete and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute.
However, the principal consideration is whether such
amendment would cause any prejudice to the other side.
6.6 In the present case, the proposed amendment would
have the effect of deleting the words “Andhra Style” from the
claimed registered trademark and restricting it to “Nagarjuna
1984”. As rightly held by the Trial Court, the amendment is
necessary to bring the pleadings in conformity with the
registered trademark. The amendment would neither cause
prejudice to the defendant nor introduce a new cause of action.
6.7 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Basavaraj
(supra), has clearly held that an amendment to the pleadings
after commencement of the trial has to be considered liberally
if the same is necessary for the comprehensive and complete
adjudication of the dispute. However, it has also been held that
the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC requires the Court to
- 8 -
WP No. 27611 of 2026
examine as to why the amendment could not have been sought
earlier.
6.8 In the present case, the pleadings were made on the
basis of the registered trademark certificate, but the trademark
was incorrectly described therein. The amendment is sought
only to correct the description and bring the pleadings in
conformity with the said certificate, on the basis of which the
suit itself is founded. Even if the amendment is not permitted,
the Trial Court can necessarily adjudicate the suit on the basis
of the registered trademark certificate. The amendment,
however, only facilitates bringing the pleadings in conformity
with the registered trademark certificate.
7. In that view of the matter, the judgments relied upon by
the petitioner would not advance the case so as to warrant
interference by this Court with the impugned order.
8. This Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VP