Biri Maker’s Bid To Seize Rival’s Goods Fails Over Unsupported Removal Fears, Though Orissa HC Says Evidence-Gathering Alone Doesn’t Bar Inspection.

The Petitioners, who alleged that the Opposite Parties marketed biri products using marks and packaging deceptively similar to their registered mark “SHIBA BIRI 480,” filed a commercial suit seeking injunctions, delivery-up, accounts and damages.

Along with the suit, they sought appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect identified premises, seize disputed goods and business records, and take related measures. The Commercial Court partly granted interim injunctive relief, but rejected the commission application on 06.01.2026, finding the asserted stock and risk of removal unsupported by material. The Petitioners challenged that refusal under Article 227; the Opposite Parties did not appear before the High Court.

Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 restricts statutory challenges to interlocutory orders of Commercial Courts, while leaving the High Court’s constitutional supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 intact; that jurisdiction is narrow and is not a forum to correct ordinary errors or substitute another possible view (Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath; Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil; Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel).

Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC permits a local investigation to elucidate a matter in dispute; Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC permits inspection, detention or preservation of relevant property; and Section 135(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act authorises interlocutory orders preserving infringing goods and related evidence.

A commission may generate evidence for the Court, subject to objections and scrutiny, but its appointment is discretionary and requires a sufficient factual basis and proportionate safeguards.

Proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC are punitive and require clear proof of breach; failure to establish breach does not itself bar a separate application for preservation.

A court must independently assess requested relief even when the opposing party does not object (Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan).

The High Court held that the Commercial Court’s broad observation that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence required qualification: inspection or preservation may be permissible under the cited provisions, and the Rule 2-A rejection did not determine the commission application.

Nonetheless, the application sought extensive measures—including entry into premises, seizure of goods and records, breaking locks, police assistance and delivery of goods to the Petitioners—without sufficient material supporting the asserted stock or risk of removal. The earlier injunction and direction to preserve stock-and-sales accounts were relevant, though not a complete substitute for preservation of goods.

The Commercial Court’s independent finding that the factual basis for the requested intervention was inadequate was not shown to be perverse or contrary to the record; setting it aside would improperly substitute the High Court’s assessment under Article 227.

It clarified that the Petitioners may apply afresh for suitably confined inspection or preservation directions if subsequent material or materially changed circumstances provide specific grounds; such an application must be independently assessed under the applicable provisions and cannot be rejected on the categorical view that preservation is impermissible or that failure to prove injunction breach bars protective relief.

No view was expressed on the merits of the parties’ substantive trademark claims; no order as to costs was made.