Synopsis

Two intra‑court appeals were filed against an order of a learned Single Judge dated 25.08.2025 in a suit for injunction. The Single Judge, while dealing with a contempt application (under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC), directed the defendants to cease using the domain name “http://www.ultracomindia.com” and to cease using the corporate name “Utracon Structural Systems Private Limited” and to make requisite amendments in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) records. The Division Bench disposed of both appeals, recording concessions and undertakings from the respondents. In one appeal, the court clarified that the appellant could file an affidavit without accepting the respondent’s stand on the impugned logo. In the other appeal, the respondent agreed not to precipitate implementation of the direction to change the corporate name until the pending applications (under Order I Rule 10, Order VII Rule 11, and Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2) were decided.

Court: High Court of Delhi (Division Bench)
Coram: V. Kameswar Rao & Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Date: April 2, 2026
Citation: 2026:DHC:2774-DB
Core Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4; Intellectual Property – Trade Name, Domain Name; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Legal Framework

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 (temporary injunctions), Rule 2A (consequences of disobedience/breach of injunction), Rule 4 (vacation of interim injunction); Order I Rule 10 (impleadment of parties); Order VII Rule 10 (return of plaint), Rule 11 (rejection of plaint).

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Sec

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.