OSA(CAD)/118/2023 of V.V.V. and Sons Edible Oils Limited Vs S. Chelliah Chettiar Firm on 11 September 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-09-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR O.S.A(CAD) Nos. 118 and 119 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.20023 of 2023 M/s.V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Limited Rep.by its Director M.Rajiv Vignesh No.443, Bazaar, Virudhunagar - 626 001 Registered Address No.6, 6/2, Ellayamudali Street II Lane, (Kailasam Street), Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081. .. Appellant in both O.S.A.(CAD)s Vs S. Chelliah Chettiar Firm Exporter of Savouries 149-A, Illayarasanandai Road Kovilpatti- 628 502, Tuticorin District Having Factory at No.8/1-C, Sri Murugan Theatre Chatrapatti Village, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondent(s) in both O.S.A.(CAD)s Common Prayer : Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S.Rules, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 20.07.2021 passed in A.No.1368 of 2020 in C.S.No.736 of 2019 and C.S.No.736 of 2019. For Appellant (s): Mr.P.V.Sudakar in both O.S.A.(CAD)s For Respondent(s): Mr.Ankith Kumar in both O.S.A.(CAD)s C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Velmurugan J.) These appeals have been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the fair and decretal order dated 20.07.2021 passed in A.No.1368 of 2020 in C.S.No.736 of 2019, wherein and whereby, the plaint seeking a permanent injunction was rejected.

2. The appellant in both the appeals is the plaintiff viz., M/s.V.V.V & Sons Edible Oils Ltd, manufacturer of sesame oil under the brand name "Idhayam". The respondent is the defendant/applicant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

3. Brief facts in C.S.No.736 of 2019 & A.No.1368 of 2020 are as follows :

3.1. The plaintiff, M/s.V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Limited is in the trade of manufacturing and marketing edible oils, pulses, cereals and appalams. The plaintiff initially commenced its business in the year 1943 as a partnership firm under the name and style “VVV & Sons”. In the year 2008, the said firm was converted into a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and registered with the Registrar of Companies, Chennai. The plaintiff obtained registration of the trademark “Idhayam” as a word mark on 15.10.1992, which has been periodically renewed and continues to remain valid. The plaintiff has been exploiting the trademark “Idhayam” in respect of its products, which enjoy a substantial market both within India and abroad. The word mark “Idhayam” has acquired considerable reputation among consumers for its quality, and the plaintiff has established substantial goodwill and trans- border reputation, thereby strengthening the distinctiveness of the mark.

3.2. The plaintiff further states that it came to its notice that in the United States of America, the defendant claiming to be an exporter of sweets and savouries to countries abroad, is affixing the word “Idhayam” on his goods, which is the registered trademark of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff’s registration is in respect of Class 29, and the defendant is using the word mark for different Class of goods, the adoption of the word “Idhayam” by the defendant, being deceptively similar, will confuse and deceive the plaintiff’s customers. In the wrapper, though it is mentioned that it is for export to a Company in USA, still the affixture of the mark “Idhayam” on the wrapper within India constitutes infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark.

3.3. The defendant, M/s.S.Chelliah Chettiar Firm, Exporter of Savouries, denied the allegations and contended that he is only a contractor manufacturing savouries and sweets exclusively for export to the United States pursuant to purchase orders placed by M/s.Meenakshi Overseas LLC, the registered proprietor of the mark “Idhayam South Indian Delite” in the USA and Canada. The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff has not impleaded Meenakshi Overseas LLC, the principal owner of the trademark, and instead proceeded against the contractor. It was also contended that the plaintiff’s registration of the mark ‘Idhayam’ under Class 29 for sesame oil does not extend to the mark “Idhayam South Indian Delite” used for food items under Classes 29 and 30. The defendant pointed out that the plaintiff had already challenged the registration of M/s.Meenakshi Overseas LLC trademark “Idhayam South Indian Delite” before the United States Courts and failed in its attempt to cancel the same. Hence, the present suit in India amounts to suppression of material facts and re-litigation.

3.4. It was further contended that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit in C.S.No.726 of 2017 against M/s.Meenakshi Overseas LLC and others seeking injunction for infringement of the mark “Idhayam”. The said suit was rejected by judgment and decree dated 01.02.2019. The present suit is on the same set of facts against the contractor/supplier in respect of another trademark “Idhayam South Indian Delite” without impleading the owner of the said trademark. It was further contended that without disclosing the aforesaid facts, in the present suit, the plaintiff obtained an ex-parte injunction against the defendant, who is merely a supplier of the goods. Therefore, the present suit in India amounted to suppression of material facts and re-litigation.

3.5. The learned Single Judge, while considering the Application No.1368 of 2020 in C.S.No.736 of 2019, filed by the defendant, examined the plea for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court found that the plaintiff had suppressed the facts of prior unsuccessful proceedings in the USA as well as filing of the suit in C.S.No.726 of 2017 and its dismissal and concluded that the present suit was a clear case of re-litigation. It was further found that the plaint disclosed non real cause of action within India, as the alleged infringing acts were confined to the USA. On these grounds, the plaint was rejected.

3.6. Assailing the dismissal of the suit and challenging the findings of the learned Single Judge, the plaintiff has preferred the present intra-Court appeals in O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.118 and 119 of 2023.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the plaint in C.S.No.736 of 2019 on the ground of suppression of material facts and re-litigation. He submitted that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is required to confine itself to the averments in the plaint and that the plaint in the present case discloses a cause of action and is not barred by law. He further submitted that, in the identical/similar matters in O.S.A.No.63 of 2019 etc., batch, this Court, by order dated 05.06.2026, had already set aside the orders rejecting the plaints and restored the suits for adjudication on merits. Since the issues involved in the present appeals are substantially similar, the impugned order is also liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the present appeals could not be taken up earlier along with the said batch of cases for want of service, and upon service being effected, they are now placed for hearing.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, in view of the subsequent developments, the respondent/defendant is no longer marketing or manufacturing the same goods and is willing to give an undertaking to settle the matter.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

7. It is relevant to note that, in an identical matter, this Court has already set aside the order rejecting the plaints and restored the suits for adjudication on merits, leaving all questions of fact and law open for consideration by the learned Single Judge. The issues involved in the present appeals being substantially similar, the said decision would enure to the benefit of the appellant herein.

8. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, in view of the subsequent developments, the respondent is no longer marketing or manufacturing the goods and is willing to give an undertaking to settle the matter. In such circumstances, the parties can work out the same before the learned Single Judge.

9. Accordingly, O.S.A.Nos.118 and 119 of 2023 are allowed and the impugned order rejecting the plaint in C.S.No.736 of 2019 is set aside. The suit is restored to file. The learned Single Judge shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. It is open to the parties to place their settlement/undertaking before the learned Single Judge. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.V.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 11-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ms

P.VELMURUGAN J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. ms O.S.A(CAD) Nos.118 and 119 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.20023 of 2023 11-09-2026