Delhi HC Sets Aside Dismissal Of Copyright Suit Over Local Commissioner’s Visit To Additional Premises; Expunges Findings Of Collusion Against Counsel [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has set aside a Commercial Court order dismissing a copyright and design infringement suit solely on the ground that a Local Commissioner had visited additional premises not specifically mentioned in the order of appointment. The High Court also expunged adverse observations of collusion made against the plaintiffs’ counsel and the Local Commissioner, holding that such findings were unsupported and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing.

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla was hearing an appeal in RFA (COMM) 695/2025 filed by the plaintiffs, Rashi Santosh Soni and another, challenging the November 15, 2025 order of the Commercial Court in CS (Comm) 667/2024.

The underlying suit alleged infringement of copyright and design rights in respect of tower fans. On June 1, 2024, the Commercial Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and appointed Local Commissioners to visit the respondents’ premises and conduct search and seizure.

However, the Commercial Court later dismissed the suit on the ground that the Local Commissioner, a practising advocate, had visited premises other than the one specifically mentioned in the order appointing her. The trial court went so far as to observe that the Local Commissioner had acted “in collusion” with the plaintiffs and their counsel and termed the conduct fraudulent and akin to contempt of court. It imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh each on the plaintiffs to be deposited with the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of the Delhi Bar Association, along with additional costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to one of the defendants.

Setting aside the order, the High Court held that it was “obvious, at a bare glance,” that the impugned order could not be sustained. The Bench specifically queried counsel for the respondents as to whether there was any provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that permitted dismissal of a suit on such a ground. No such provision could be pointed out.

The Court observed that it was unaware of any legal provision under which a plaintiff’s suit could be dismissed merely because a Local Commissioner visited premises other than the one mentioned in the order of appointment. It further noted that the Commercial Court had returned serious findings of collusion against the plaintiffs, their counsel, and the Local Commissioner without citing any material in support of such conclusions.

Emphasising the gravity of such allegations, the Bench observed that findings of collusion, especially against practising counsel, are extremely serious and must not be made lightly. It pointed out that neither the counsel for the plaintiffs nor the Local Commissioner had been afforded an opportunity to show cause before such adverse findings were recorded.

The High Court underscored that the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned courts to be circumspect while making observations against practising lawyers. Observing that the Bar and the Bench are two limbs of the same justice ecosystem, the Bench stressed that mutual respect is essential to ensure that the administration of justice remains unsullied.

The High Court recorded its “unhappiness” with the findings of the Commercial Court insofar as they alleged collusion and were adverse to the plaintiffs’ counsel and the Local Commissioner. Finding no basis whatsoever for such conclusions, the Bench ordered that the findings of collusion stand expunged.

The Court further observed that the Local Commissioner had acted with utmost propriety. It noted that in many cases, courts authorise a Local Commissioner not only to visit the premises disclosed in the plaint but also any other premises where infringing goods may be found. In the present case, such additional authorisation had not been expressly recorded. Despite discovering infringing goods at the first premises, the Local Commissioner did not seize them, as she was not authorised to do so. In these circumstances, the High Court held that no impropriety could be attributed to her conduct.

Holding that the impugned order could not be sustained either on facts or in law, the Division Bench quashed and set it aside. The suit, CS (Comm) 667/2024, has been restored to its original position and directed to be listed before the Commercial Court on February 25, 2026, for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Case Details:

• Case Title: Rashi Santosh Soni and Another v. Rajesh Sharma and Others
• Case Number: RFA (COMM) 695/2025
• Arising out of: CS (Comm) 667/2024
• Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
• Date of Judgment: February 3, 2026
• Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla
• For Appellants: Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Ms. Jaspreet S. Kapur, Ms. Shweta and Mr. Wasim Ansari, Advocates
• Impugned Order: November 15, 2025, passed by District Judge (Commercial)-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

[Read Judgment]