The Delhi High Court has set aside an order issued by the District Judge (Commercial Courts) in a trademark infringement case, Pawan Kumar Mittal Proprietor Of Salasar Dev Basmati House Vs. Vijay Gupta And Ors. The original order, dated May 14, 2025 (with an effective date of May 7, 2025), declined to issue an ex parte ad interim injunction without providing any reasons for this decision. It merely issued summons to the defendants for the settlement of issues and directed the filing of documents.

The High Court found the lower court's order "completely unsustainable in law" due to the absence of reasoning for refusing the ex parte ad interim injunction. Citing Supreme Court precedents, including Laxmikant V Patel v Chetanbhai Shah, the High Court emphasized that in trademark infringement and passing off cases, if a prima facie case is established, courts are often required to issue notice and appoint a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods, potentially waiving advance service to prevent the defeat of the commission.

The appellant had specifically sought an injunction, appointment of a Local Commissioner, and a waiver of the advance service requirement. The impugned order failed to provide any reasons for rejecting these specific requests.

Given that issuing notice in the appeal would be counterproductive to the request for a Local Commissioner, the High Court quashed and set aside the lower court's order. The applications for waiver of advance service, ex parte ad interim injunction, and appointment of a Local Commissioner have been remitted back to the District Judge (Commercial Courts) for de novo consideration.

The appellant is directed to appear before the Commercial Court on July 10, 2025, at 11:00 AM. The High Court has expressly stated that it has not formed any view on the merits of the appellant's entitlement to the requested reliefs, and the learned Commercial Court is urged to hear and decide these applications as expeditiously as possible on the specified date. The quashed order of May 7, 2025, should not influence the Commercial Court's fresh consideration of the matter.