The Delhi High Court has highlighted Section 531 on the Bhartiya Nagrik Sakshya Sanhita while dealing with a case of forgery and fabrication of documents in a trademark infringement dispute.

The statute provides that if, before the Sanhita came into force, any appeal, application, trial, inquiry, or investigation is pending, it will be handled according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as if the Sanhita had not come into effect.

The Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that, "In these proceedings, since the application was pending when the new statutes Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘BNS’) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘BNSS’) were enacted, the matter would continue under the erstwhile Code itself. This is also clear from Section 531 of the `Bhartiya Nagrik Sakshya Sanhita which reads.... if, immediately before the date on which this Sanhita comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the said Code), as if this Sanhita had not come into force".

KG Marketing, a manufacturer of electrical appliances, filed a lawsuit against two individuals seeking an injunction to prevent them from using the 'SURYA' mark and associated trade dress. KG Marketing claimed significant sales and advertised its products in various newspapers. An ex parte interim injunction was granted in their favor in January of the previous year based on their pleadings.

Later, the defendants, who used the mark “SURYA GOLD,” alleged that KG Marketing had fabricated newspaper advertisements and invoices solely for the lawsuit. The injunction was vacated after the proprietor of KG Marketing instructed their counsel to withdraw the suit and agreed to the vacation of the ex parte order.

Meanwhile, the defendants filed another suit to prevent KG Marketing from infringing on their design rights and using the 'SURYA GOLD' mark. They presented original newspapers to prove that the documents KG Marketing relied on were fabricated.

Subsequently, two affidavits were filed in which the proprietor of KG Marketing apologized for submitting the fabricated newspapers.

The High Court emphasized the gravity of forgery and fabrication, noting that KG Marketing did not admit to these actions until the defendants presented the original newspapers. To that end, it was said that, “the offence of forgery/fabrication of newspapers having been admitted and the filing of false affidavit having taken place during the proceedings being pending before this Court, a case is made out for registration of a complaint under Section 340 CrPC.”

Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar General to take action within four weeks and lodge a complaint with the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The Court also decreed in favour of the defendants, restraining KG Marketing from using the 'SURYA GOLD' mark and further directing KG Marketing to pay Rs. 5 lakh in costs to the defendants.

Cause Title: M/s KG Marketing India vs MS Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC: 4887)

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Delhi High CourtJustice Prathiba M SinghBNS

Ananya Soni