FAO(OS) (COMM)/168/2026 of CELSIUS HEALTHCARE PVT LTD Vs DWD PHARMACEUTICALS LTD on 21 July 2026

1. The present appeal lays a challenge to an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 05.06.2026 in an application being I.A. No. 15975/2026 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) whereby the learned Single Judge has restrained the appellant herein by stating as under: “36. In view of the aforesaid, as also keeping in mind the existing position of law, till the next date of hearing, the defendant, its directors, employees, servants, agents, distributors, partners, franchises, representatives, suppliers, affiliates, subsidiaries, franchisees, licensees, representatives, group companies, and assigns are restrained from manufacturing, selling and/or offering for sale or in any manner using the impugned marks, DIZEST/CELSISUSDIZEST/ DYZEST/

or any other mark which contains or is deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s ZEST, DIZEST and ZEST family of marks as a trademark or part of a trademark, trade name or part of a trade name, corporate name, email, domain name or part of a domain name or in any manner whatsoever which would amount to passing off of the plaintiff’s ZEST, DIZEST and ZEST Family of Trademarks.

37. Upon the plaintiff taking requisite steps within a period of one week issue notice to defendant through all permissible modes returnable before the learned Joint Registrar on 24.08.2026.”

2. Although various submissions have been advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, she submits that the appellant is willing to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC before the learned Single Judge seeking vacation of the impugned order. Pending consideration, she seeks permission for the appellant to sell/dispose of the existing stock of the impugned goods in the appellant’s possession bearing the brand/trademarks ‘CELSISUSDIZEST/ DIZEST’, valued at Rs. 27,91,138/-, as detailed in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed before this Court by the learned Senior Counsel. Paragraph 3 of the said affidavit reads as under: “3. By way of this affidavit, I further submit that that as on 12th July 2026, the stock of existing impugned goods under the brand / trade mark “CELSIUSDIZEST / DIZEST” with the Appellant / Defendant is provided as below:

PRODUCT PACK BATCH NO. EXPIRY STOCK UNITS VALUE (INR) DIZEST CAP 10’S 422CDS001 OCT-26

DIZEST CAP 10’S 422CDS002 JAN-27

20142

DIZEST CAP 10’S 422CDS003 FEB-27

19482 DIZEST CAP 10’S 422CDS004 APR-27

126797 DIZEST CAP TOTAL

1,70,879 DIZEST DROPS 1x15ML SLG-250193 OCT-26

DIZEST DROPS 1x15ML SLG-250250 DEC-26

DIZEST DROPS 1x15ML SLG-250278 FEB-27

DIZEST DROPS 1x15ML SLG-260239 SEP-27 17896 1225876 DIZEST DROPS 1x15ML SLG-260367 NOV-27

678150 DIZEST DROPS TOTAL

28070 19,21,463 DIZEST SYRUP 200ML 88LDS021 OCT-26

DIZEST SYRUP 200ML 88LDS022 NOV-26

DIZEST SYRUP 200ML 88LDS023 FEB-27

DIZEST SYRUP 200ML 88LDS024 MAR-27

18441 DIZEST SYRUP 200ML 88LDS025 APR-27

662791 DIZEST SYRUP TOTAL

6,98,796 GRAND TOTAL 36506 27,91,138

”

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in appellant selling/disposing of the existing stock of the impugned goods bearing the brand/trademarks ‘CELSISUSDIZEST/ DIZEST’, as reflected in the affidavit, provided that the complete sale amount is deposited in this Court.

4. Having heard the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that it shall be appropriate to grant time to the appellant to sell/dispose of the existing impugned goods under brand/trade name ‘CELSISUSDIZEST/ DIZEST’ as depicted in paragraph 3 of the affidavit on or before 31.10.2026.

5. On such sale, 50% thereof shall be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court on or before 15.11.2026.

6. The appellant shall also file a statement of sale/balance stock, if any, by way of an affidavit on or before 15.11.2026.

7. On such deposit, the learned Registrar General shall invest the amount in an interest-bearing Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with periodic renewals of a nationalised bank till further orders.

8. Suffice to state that the aforesaid is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit.

9. As the learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that she intends to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC, nothing further survives in the appeal, the same is disposed of. Pending applications are disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 21, 2026/msh/AJ