Delhi High Court
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)/74/2021 of B.K. STEEL INDUSTRIES HUF Vs HINDUSTAN TECHNOCAST PVT. LTD. AND ANR. on 12 October 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O-2 # CNR No. DLHC010408632021 + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 74/2021 B.K. STEEL INDUSTRIES HUF .....Petitioner Through: None. Versus HINDUSTAN TECHNOCAST PVT. LTD. AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jaspreet S. Kapur and Ms.Shweta, Advocates for R-1. Ms.Nidhi
$~O-2 and O-3
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
O-2
CNR No. DLHC010408632021
+
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 74/2021
B.K. STEEL INDUSTRIES HUF
.....Petitioner
Through:
None.
Versus
HINDUSTAN TECHNOCAST PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Jaspreet
S.
Kapur
and
Ms.Shweta, Advocates for R-1.
Ms.Nidhi
Raman,
CGSC
with
Ms.Nikita Singh, Advocate for R-2.
O-3
CNR No. DLHC010409952021
+
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 164/2021
DEWAN ENGINEERING AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES
.....Petitioner
Through:
None.
Versus
HINDUSTAN TECHNOCAST PVT LTD AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr.
Jaspreet
S.
Kapur
and
Ms.Shweta, Advocates for R-1.
Ms.Nidhi
Raman,
CGSC
with
Ms.Nikita Singh, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
12.10.2026 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2026 at 11:02:53
1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 submits that under almost similar circumstances, the rectification petition against the same respondent has been dismissed by the Court in the case titled as „Sita Ram Iron Foundry and Engineering Works vs. Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd. and Another’1. He also submits that the petitioner therein was claiming to be a proprietor of the trademark “GHANGHOR BADAL” and had challenged the petitioners registered trademarks “BADAL”.
2. In the instant cases, the petitioners are challenging the same trademark namely, “BADAL” and the petitioners are claiming to be using “ARMAN BADAL” and “JOGA SINGH BADAL”.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 points out from different paragraphs of the order dated 09.07.2025 that the present petitions do not have any substance and the same deserve to be dismissed in view of enunciation of law laid down in Sita Ram Iron Foundry and Engineering Works.
4. Be that as it may, since, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners despite the matter being called out in second round, therefore, the instant petitions stand dismissed for want of prosecution.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J OCTOBER 12, 2026 Nc
1 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8085; order dated 09.07.2025 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2026 at 11:02:53