26 May 2017

Vacation of interim injunction on basis of non-binding undertaking, not correct

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 12 April 2017 has set aside the decision of the Single Judge Bench wherein the latter had vacated the earlier ex-parte interim injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiffs in a designs infringement case.

The Single Judge Bench had vacated the interim order on the basis of undertaking by the defendant, without ensuring that the defendants’ application under Order 39 Rule 4 was served on the Plaintiffs and their response was placed on record.

The Division Bench in the case of Kent RO system Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon seller Services Private Limited, in this regard also took note of the fact that though the undertaking was extracted in the order of the Single Judge, the same was not accepted by the Judge, and that the SJ Order did not reflect consideration of any submission on behalf of the appellant.

However considering the fact that vacation of interim injunction had continued to operate for more than 3 months, the court did not direct restoration of injunction. It instead accepted the undertaking of the defendant and allowed the appellant to file response within 4 days.


Browse articles