$~68
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
+ 	FAO(OS) (COMM) 156/2025, CM APPL. 62710/2025 & CM APPL. 62711/2025

	ELXIR TRADING PVT. LTD				.....Appellant
Through:	Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Mr. Vidit Garg and Mr. Suresh K Chopra, Advs.

				versus

	KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD AND ORS 	     .....Respondents
Through:	Ms. Rajeshwari and Mr. Rajneesh Chopra, Advs.
	CORAM:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
				ORDER (ORAL)
%				     06.10.2025
	
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 23 September 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA 7194/2025 in CS(Comm) 1062/2024.  

2. IA 7194/2025 had been preferred by the respondents as the plaintiffs in CS(Comm) 1062/2024, alleging that obstructions were placed, by the appellant, to impede the execution of the commissions by local Commissioners appointed by the Court, who were directed to visit the premises of the appellant and inventorize and seize goods which bore the design of the respondents which, according to the respondents, had been infringed by the appellant.

3. A reading of the impugned order reveals that the learned Single Judge has taken serious adverse notice to the manner in which the respondents had behaved, during the execution of the commissions.

4. The dispute essentially survives with respect to the moulds which were used by the appellant for the infringing designs.  Mr. Aggarwal, who appears for the appellant, submits that the learned Single Judge, while permitting the respondents to visit the appellant’s premises afresh, has further directed the appellant to produce, before the expert of the respondents, the infringing moulds and dyes used for production of the seized products.  He submits that the said moulds and dyes are not available and that, therefore, it is impossible for the appellant to produce them. 

5. Ms. Rajeshwari, learned Counsel for the respondents, seriously opposes this submission. 

6. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice would be subserved if the present appeal is disposed of by modifying the impugned order in two respects.

7. Firstly, we substitute the direction for visit, at the appellant’s premises, by the respondent, by directing the visit to be conducted by Ms. Saumitri H (Mobile No. 8368607044), Advocate, who is appointed by the Court as a local Commissioner in that regard.

8. The terms of the commission would be as under:

(i) The local Commissioner would visit the premises of the appellant on 9 October 2025 at 11 am.  Both sides would be permitted to have one representative each present at the time of execution of the visit, apart from the respondent’s expert.

(ii) The commission would be executed in terms of the order dated 23 September 2025.  However, it would be for the appellant to convince the local Commissioner that there are no moulds and dyes available with the appellant using which the impugned design was created.  We leave the discretion with the local Commissioner to take a view in that regard.

(iii) The appellant is also directed to allow the local Commissioner to inspect the physical products on which the moulds which are present in the appellant’s premises are used.

(iv) The appellant is directed to ensure that there is no obstruction whatsoever in execution of the commission.  For this purpose, we also direct that the execution of the commission would be video-graphed at the expense of the appellant.

(v) The local Commissioner would execute the commission without causing any disturbance to the legitimate business activities of the appellant.  However, should the local Commissioner be required to effect any forced ingress or egress into the premises to execute the commission, she shall be at liberty to do so.  We also reserve liberty with the local Commissioner to seek police assistance to execute the commission, should the need arise, though we sincerely hope it would not.

(vi) The local Commissioner would file a report, consequent to the execution of the commission, within a week with the Registrar of this Court.

(vii) We fix the fees of the local Commissioner as ?1 lakh which would be borne equally by both sides.  The fees of the execution would be paid in advance of the execution of the commission.

9. We do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order in any other respect. In this context, we also note that the impugned order has only returned prima facie findings and IA 7194/2025 is still pending before the learned Single Judge.

10. With the above modifications, the present appeal is disposed of.


C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
	OCTOBER 6, 2025/AR

                                                                                    

FAO(OS) (COMM) 156/2025		Page 1 of 2