Anil Singla Alias Anil Kumar & Ors vs. M/S Kwality Food Products

Facts

The appellants, Anil Singla and others, filed an appeal against orders dated July 11, 2024, and November 7, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in a commercial suit. The appeal also challenged orders dated July 18, 2024, and November 7, 2024. The respondent, M/s Kwality Food Products, had obtained an ex-parte ad interim order restraining the appellants from using the 'Ruchi' mark or deceptively similar marks. The respondent later filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC, alleging violation of the injunction and reliance on forged invoices by the appellants. The learned Single Judge compared invoices filed by the appellants in the suit with those submitted to the GST Department, noting discrepancies and prima facie finding the suit invoices to be forged and fabricated, stating the appellants had attempted to overreach the court process. The High Court was presented with these invoices, which were not initially filed in the appeal.

Held

The Court held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of concealment of vital documents, specifically the invoices. Upon perusing the invoices handed over by the respondent, the Court observed vital differences between the invoices filed by the appellants in the suit and those bearing the same date and number filed before the GST Department. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge's primary finding that the invoices filed by the appellants in the suit prima facie appeared to be forged and fabricated. The Court affirmed the learned Single Judge's observation that the defendants would first have to purge their contempt and that the learned Single Judge might take action regarding the filing of false and fabricated documents. The Court reiterated that a party approaching the court with unclean hands, polluting the stream of justice, would be denied a hearing. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellants' conduct in filing forged and fabricated invoices before the learned Single Judge warrants dismissal of their appeal, particularly in light of the principle of approaching the court with clean hands? (Question of law) Arguments: Petitioner/Appellant: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the appellants challenging the findings of the learned Single Judge regarding the forged invoices or the ad interim order. Revenue/State: The respondent contended that the appellants had blatantly violated the order of injunction and relied upon forged and fabricated invoices before the court. They submitted that the original invoices did not contain the mark 'Ruchi', while the forged invoices wrongly showed the mark to portray a false case of prior user.