The principles and legal precedents regarding the continuation of ex-parte ad-interim injunctions, focusing on the Plaintiff's conduct and the necessity for full disclosure. The Court is to decide whether to continue an injunction granted on 19th March 2024, based on the likelihood of deception due to logo similarity, the Plaintiff's potential suppression of facts, the conduct of both parties, and the interests of justice. It references key judgments emphasizing the importance of full and frank disclosure by applicants, particularly in ex-parte injunctions.

Introduction

• Examination of principles on which courts can refuse to continue ad interim relief without notice.
• Reference to judgments cited by the parties.

Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya and Anr. v. Saurabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd.

• Paragraphs 16 and 17
  • Paragraph 16:
    • Duty of applicants for ex parte injunctions.
    • Summary of principles from Sun Pharmaceuticals.
    • Emphasis on the duty of full disclosure and fair presentation.
  • Paragraph 17:
    • Principles of non-disclosure applications in English law.
    • Key principles distilled from various authorities.

HAB Pharmaceutical and Research Limited and Anr. v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited

• Paragraphs 20 to 24
  • Paragraph 20:
    • Supreme Court's view on the importance of the internet in trade and commerce.
    • Duty of plaintiffs to disclose information available through reasonable enquiry, including the internet.
  • Paragraph 21:
    • The relevance of internet searches in the context of reasonable enquiry.
    • Plaintiffs' duty to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
  • Paragraph 22:
    • Plaintiffs' responsibility to gather and disclose information about the defendant from the internet.
  • Paragraph 23:
    • Information available on the internet and its role in reasonable enquiry.
  • Paragraph 24:
    • Plaintiffs' obligation to disclose relevant internet-based information to maintain judicial integrity.
• Paragraphs 33 and 34
  • Paragraph 33:
    • Importance of material disclosure from reasonable internet enquiry.
    • Impact on the court's decision to grant ad interim relief.
  • Paragraph 34:
    • Justification for discontinuing ad interim relief granted without full disclosure.
    • Consequences of failing to disclose relevant information.

Conclusion

• The necessity for applicants to make full and accurate disclosures, including internet-based information.
• The significance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
• Consequences of non-disclosure and the court's discretion in such matters.

Evaluation of Plaintiff’s Conduct

• Plaintiff's Statement: Plaintiff claimed to have learned of the Defendant's logo use in October 2023.
• Contradictory Evidence: Evidence showed the Plaintiff was aware of the Defendant's logo use since 2022 through various sources, including a cease and desist notice and publicly available information.
• Suppression of Material Facts: The Plaintiff failed to disclose several critical pieces of information.

Legal Consequences

• Court's Assessment: The Court found the Plaintiff’s suppression of facts deliberate and culpable.
• Ex-Parte Relief Not Justified: The Court concluded that had the suppressed facts been disclosed, it would not have granted ex-parte relief without notice.
• Non-Continuation of Ad Interim Relief: Based on the suppression of material facts, the Court decided not to continue the ad interim relief granted earlier.

Decision and Order

• Refusal to Continue Relief: The ad interim relief granted on 19th March 2024 was not continued.
• Refusal to Stay the Order: The Plaintiff’s request to stay the order was denied.

Conclusion

• Final Order: The Court did not find it in the interests of justice to continue the ex-parte ad interim injunction due to the Plaintiff’s failure to disclose relevant facts.