Nagarjuna Restaurant Name Fight: Karnataka HC Upholds Amendment Identifying Group’s Registered Mark As “Nagarjuna 1984”

The plaintiff filed a commercial suit alleging that the defendant’s use of “Nagrajuna Andhra Style” infringed its registered trademark.

The plaint described the plaintiff’s trademark as “Nagarjuna Andhra Style 1984”.

After trial commenced, the plaintiff sought amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to delete “Andhra Style” and describe the trademark as “Nagarjuna 1984”, stating that the original description was an error and that the amendment would align the pleadings with the registration certificate.

The Commercial Court allowed the amendment.

The defendant challenged that order, arguing that the amendment changed the basis of the suit and affected the evidence and admissions.

The High Court considered the pleadings, the defendant’s written statement, and the registration certificate.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings where necessary for determining the real questions in controversy; after trial has commenced, its proviso requires the court to consider whether, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

The court applied the principles that amendments necessary for complete and effective adjudication may be permitted, subject principally to whether they cause prejudice to the other party.

It considered Basavaraj v. Indira and Others, Civil Appeal No. 2886/2012, on amendments after commencement of trial and the due-diligence requirement; and also considered Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, (2009) 2 SCC 409, and Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84

The Court treated the proposed change as correction of the trademark’s description, not as a change to the underlying dispute: the suit concerned the parties’ competing uses of the mark, and the registration certificate was the basis on which that dispute had to be adjudicated.

Although the plaint had described the mark as “Nagarjuna Andhra Style 1984”, the amendment would bring the pleadings into conformity with the certificate and would neither introduce a new cause of action nor alter the suit’s scope or remove an admission.

The Court also noted the plaintiff’s categorical submission that it would lead no further evidence in light of the amendment, and found no resulting prejudice to the defendant.

It considered the post-trial timing and the due-diligence requirement, but concluded that the requested change corrected the description of the registration on which the suit was already founded.

The Court declined to interfere with the Commercial Court’s order and dismissed the writ petition.