Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a criminal application seeking perjury proceedings against Britannia Industries Ltd. while allowing its applications for amendment of the plaint and impleadment of additional defendants in a trademark infringement suit.
Justice Tejas Karia held that perjury proceedings under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be initiated only in exceptional circumstances involving deliberate falsehood. Mere inadvertent errors or confusion do not justify criminal action. The Court further permitted amendment and impleadment to ensure effective adjudication of the real controversy .
Facts
Britannia Industries Ltd. filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark “GOOD DAY” for confectionery and food products such as soan papdi.
An ex parte ad interim injunction was initially granted restraining use of the mark. However, the injunction was subsequently vacated with consent, and the matter was referred to mediation.
Thereafter, Britannia moved applications under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint and under Order I Rule 10 for impleadment of M/s Jai Food Products and Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal, the registered proprietor of the mark “GOOD DAY” in Class 30 for papad.
Simultaneously, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a criminal application seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against Britannia and its representative.
Issues
The Court considered three key issues:
- Whether Britannia had deliberately suppressed material facts warranting perjury proceedings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether amendment of the plaint was permissible in light of alleged concealment.
- Whether impleadment of the registered proprietor of the mark was necessary for proper adjudication of the suit.
Plaintiff’s arguments
Britannia contended that the omission regarding a pending rectification petition against the mark “GOOD DAY” registered in favour of Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal was inadvertent. The company explained that its representative, who joined in 2021, was unaware of proceedings initiated in 2018.
It argued that confusion arose due to discrepancies in the defendants’ company name as reflected on product packaging and MCA records. The amendment sought to clarify facts, disclose pending rectification proceedings, and reflect the correct position regarding trademark registrations.
Britannia maintained that amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy and that impleadment of the registered proprietor was essential.
Defendants’ arguments
The defendants alleged deliberate suppression, arguing that Britannia falsely created urgency by claiming it became aware of the mark only in October 2024 despite having initiated rectification proceedings in 2018.
They contended that Britannia masked the identity of the correct corporate entity and suppressed knowledge of the registered proprietor’s longstanding use of the mark for papad since 1999.
Relying on precedents, the defendants argued that amendment cannot be used to “whitewash” suppression and that perjury proceedings were warranted because false statements were made under oath.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the legal threshold for perjury proceedings under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, it reiterated that perjury must involve deliberate and conscious falsehood on a matter of substance supported by unimpeachable evidence.
Perjury proceedings are to be initiated only in exceptional circumstances where deliberate intent to mislead the Court is clearly established. Mere inaccuracy, confusion, or inadvertent omission does not meet the stringent standard.
On amendment of pleadings, the Court relied on settled jurisprudence that amendments necessary for determining the real controversy should be liberally allowed unless mala fide.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied upon Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, where the Supreme Court emphasized that prosecution for perjury must not be initiated lightly and requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood.
It also referred to Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, which held that amendments should ordinarily be permitted if necessary for determining the real controversy and not mala fide.
The Court rejected reliance on decisions cited by the defendants, holding that no accrued defence was being unfairly taken away.
Court’s reasoning
The High Court found no unimpeachable evidence demonstrating deliberate suppression or misrepresentation by Britannia.
The confusion regarding the defendant company’s name stemmed from inconsistencies between product packaging and corporate records. The Court noted that the defendants themselves had inconsistently displayed their company name on packaging.
The omission regarding rectification proceedings was treated as inadvertent rather than intentional concealment. Consequently, the high threshold for initiating perjury proceedings was not met.
The Court further held that amendment was necessary to bring complete facts on record and that impleadment of the registered proprietor was essential for effective adjudication of trademark rights.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed Britannia’s applications for amendment and impleadment, directed issuance of summons to newly added defendants, and dismissed the perjury application.
The amended plaint was taken on record, and timelines were fixed for filing written statements and replications .
Implications
This judgment reinforces three important legal principles:
• Perjury proceedings in commercial litigation require proof of deliberate and conscious falsehood.
• Courts will not criminalize inadvertent procedural errors.
• Amendments necessary for determining real controversy will be liberally allowed.
In trademark disputes, the ruling underscores the importance of correctly identifying registered proprietors and ensuring all necessary parties are before the Court.
Case law references
- Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) – Perjury requires deliberate falsehood supported by clear evidence.
- Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi (2006) – Amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed if necessary for determining real controversy.
- Aura Synergy India Ltd. v. New Age False Ceiling Co. (P) Ltd. – Amendment cannot be used to defeat accrued defence (distinguished).
- Huntsman International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Abiss Textile Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Suppression allegations in amendment context (distinguished).
FAQs
1. When can a court initiate perjury proceedings in civil cases?
Only when there is clear evidence of deliberate and conscious falsehood on a material issue intended to mislead the court.
2. Can a plaint be amended after allegations of suppression?
Yes, if the amendment is necessary to determine the real controversy and is not mala fide.
3. Why is impleadment of a registered trademark proprietor important?
Because the registered proprietor’s rights are directly affected and their presence ensures complete and effective adjudication.