Material suppression of prior adverse orders and ownership disputes disentitles a plaintiff to ex-parte equitable injunctive relief.

The Plaintiff, Elder Prroject Limited, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off, claiming it coined and exclusively used the device mark containing the word "ELDER" in a stylized blue font with three leaves since 1992-93

On September 26, 2025, the Plaintiff obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointment of a Court Receiver

The Defendant moved to vacate the injunction under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC, alleging the Plaintiff suppressed material facts: (i) that Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd (EPL), now in liquidation, was the original adopter and registered owner of the "ELDER" mark since 1983; (ii) that the Directors of the Plaintiff and Defendant are siblings; (iii) the existence of four Delhi High Court orders rejecting the Plaintiff's similar claims; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s prior admissions to the Official Liquidator that it was merely a contract manufacturer for EPL until 2016

The Court applied Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC, which mandates the vacation of an *ex-parte* injunction if it was obtained through a "false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular"

It relied on the "Clean Hands" doctrine from *Abdul Cadur Allibhoy v. Mahomedally Hyderally*

and *Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India*, asserting that a litigant who breaks faith with the court by suppressing facts deserves no hearing on merits

The Court followed *Keval Ashokbhai Vasoya v. Saurabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd.* regarding the "high duty" of disclosure in *ex-parte* applications

and *Lupin Limited v. Johnson and Johnson* regarding the court's power to examine the *prima facie* validity of a registration at the interim stage

The Court found the Plaintiff guilty of "gross suppression" regarding its relationship with EPL and the adverse orders from the Delhi High Court

The Plaintiff’s claim of coining the mark in 1992 was belied by its own director’s sworn statement in 2019 that the company was a mere "job worker" for EPL

The Court rejected the Plaintiff's attempt to distinguish the "device mark" from the "word mark" during oral arguments as a "dishonest afterthought" because the Plaint specifically sought to restrain the use of the word "ELDER"

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s claim of "urgency" was found to be false, as evidence showed the Defendant used the impugned mark since 2015

Applying the law to these facts, the Court held that the Plaintiff’s contradictory stands across different fora (Official Liquidator vs. High Courts) constituted an abuse of process

It held that the Plaintiff disentitled itself to equitable relief due to deliberate non-disclosure

The Court vacated the ad-interim injunction dated September 26, 2025, dismissed the Plaintiff’s Application for temporary injunction, discharged the Court Receiver, and directed the return of seized goods to the Defendant

The Plaintiff was ordered to pay a moderate cost of ₹1,00,000/- to the Defendant for misusing the court's exceptional *ex-party* powers