Facts
The Applicants/Defendants filed an application (I.A. 3438/2026) under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking directions to the Registry to place on record an alleged order dated 26.09.2025 and provide a certified copy thereof
Source reference: para. 1The Defendants claimed that on 26.09.2025, the Court had recalled a previous order without giving them notice or an opportunity to be heard
Source reference: para. 2They further alleged that this mystery order was unavailable online, missing from the physical judicial file, and necessary for drafting an appeal against a subsequent consolidated judgment dated 09.01.2026
Source reference: paras. 3–5The Plaintiff contested these claims, asserting the procedural history was being misrepresented
Source reference: para. 7Issues
Whether an independent, enforceable order was passed on 26.09.2025 that remains missing from the judicial record
Source reference: para. 8Whether the Defendants were denied the principles of natural justice regarding the proceedings that culminated in the judgment dated 09.01.2026
Source reference: para. 17Law Applied
The Court applied Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the inherent powers of the Court to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process
Source reference: para. 1It further relied on the principle of "consolidated judgment," wherein a court may incorporate interim clarifications and procedural history into a final speaking order to resolve pending applications (specifically I.A. 32689/2025) and clarify previous recordings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999
Source reference: paras. 13–15Reasoning
The Court found the Defendants' application was based on a factually incorrect "inaccurate presumption"
Source reference: para. 8It clarified that while an operative portion was orally pronounced on 26.09.2025, the order was never signed or uploaded because the Court required clarifications on the Rectification Petition and sales data
Source reference: para. 9Subsequently, the Defendants themselves filed I.A. 32689/2025 to clarify the status of the suit
Source reference: para. 12The Court held that since the pronouncement of 26.09.2025 was expressly "recalled" within the body of the subsequent consolidated judgment dated 09.01.2026 at the request of the Defendants, no independent order of that date exists to be supplied
Source reference: paras. 15–16The Court noted that the Defendants were granted multiple hearings on 08.08.2025, 19.12.2025, 22.12.2025, and 23.12.2025, thereby satisfying the requirements of natural justice
Source reference: para. 17Holding
The Court dismissed the application, holding that the prayer to upload the alleged order of 26.09.2025 was "misconceived" as no such finalized order exists on record
The Court concluded that the judgment dated 09.01.2026 comprehensively captured the procedural history and effectively superseded the oral pronouncement of 26.09.2025 by recalling it and restoring the suit to "pending" status as requested by the Defendants themselves
Source reference: paras. 15–18Original Court PDF
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v. Sh. Gautam Tank and Ors. CS(COMM) 361/2018
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in