Bombay High Court Rejects Kailash Masala's Appeal Against Denial of Interim Relief in 'Mahalaxmi' Trademark Case

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has dismissed an appeal by Kailash Masala Industries, which had challenged a trial court's refusal to grant the company interim protection in its trademark and passing-off suit against Organic Khandeshi Food Products over the trademark 'Mahalaxmi' for its Masala Products. A single bench of Justice Shailesh P Brahme, in an order dated November 26, 2025, said the conduct of parties is an important factor while reviewing orders on interim injunctions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court noted that Kailash Masala had repeatedly delayed the progress of the underlying civil suit, leaving no reason for the High Court to interfere. Kailash Masala had filed the civil suit seeking a perpetual injunction against Organic Khandeshi and later sought interim relief, which the trial Court rejected. In the appeal, the company argued that the lower court's order was “cryptic,” lacked any comparison of the rival marks, and failed to address deceptive similarity. It sought a remand for fresh consideration. Organic Khandeshi opposed the plea, submitting that the suit had been stalled due to Kailash Masala's own lapses. It also pointed out that Kailash Masala's trademark registration application had been rejected in January 2024 after the company failed to pursue it despite repeated opportunities. After examining the record, the court noted that the suit had made no progress for nearly four years even though there was no stay. It further recorded that Kailash Masala had not produced any material that would allow a comparison of the rival marks. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v. KS Infraspace LLP, the court reiterated that the conduct of litigating parties is relevant when assessing challenges to interim injunction orders. Taking note of the delays attributable to Kailash Masala, the court observed, “It is apparent from the report that there are lapses on the part of the appellant in proceeding with the suit. In the infringement or passing off action the orders passed in application under Order 39 Rule 1 has significance cannot be justification for protracting the civil suit. The sword of Damocles cannot be kept hanging over respondents for indefinite period. The conduct of appellant is objectionable. No case is made out for remand. No discretion can be exercised in favour of such defaulting appellant.” The court found that Kailash Masala had not satisfied the requirements for grant of interim relief namely, a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and therefore, held that the Trial Court's findings were reasonable. Consequently, the court upheld the Trial Court's refusal to grant interim relief and dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs.10,000. It also directed both sides to cooperate with the trial court for expeditious disposal of the suit. Further, it was clarified that the observations in the order are only prima facie. Case Title: Kailash Masala Industries v. Organic Khandeshi Food Products Case Number: Appeal From Order No. 44 of 2023 For Petitioner: Advocate Vijay B Patil For Respondents: Advocate Bajaj Anil SClick Here To Read/Download Order

Bombay High Court Rejects Kailash Masala's Appeal Against Denial of Interim Relief in 'Mahalaxmi' Trademark Case

Ayushi Shukla

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ayushi Shukla

Bombay High Court Rejects Kailash Masala's Appeal Against Denial of Interim Relief in 'Mahalaxmi' Trademark Case

Ayushi Shukla

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ayushi Shukla

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers