Delhi High Court Criticizes Legal Counsel for Concealment
The Delhi High Court recently employed a famous line from Ian Fleming’s James Bond novel, Goldfinger, to highlight a lawyer’s repeated pattern of suppressing essential information in multiple trademark cases. In the case of Nugenesys Vs Celagenex, a division bench comprising Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora reprimanded advocate Sachin Gupta for failing to disclose crucial documents, including cease-and-desist notices, when filing suits for ex-parte injunctions.
The Court remarked, “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” This reference underscored the deliberate nature of the repeated nondisclosures, suggesting they were not random mistakes but intentional acts.
Case Background and Court’s Findings
The observations emerged during the acceptance of an appeal lodged by Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and its promoter, Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar. They contested an ex-parte injunction that prevented them from utilizing the trademark ‘RewireX’. This injunction was initially secured by Celagenex Research (India) Private Limited, which markets nutraceutical products under the trademark ‘NUREWIRE’.
Celagenex asserted that it only became aware of products being sold under the RewireX brand in May 2026. However, the court unveiled that Celagenex had sent a cease-and-desist notice to Nugenesys as early as October 2025, and had also opposed its trademark application in January 2026. These significant developments were omitted from the plaint, with relevant documents buried under what the court described as an obscure heading.
The bench concluded that Celagenex attempted to fabricate a recent cause of action to create urgency and secure an injunction without notifying Nugenesys. The court also referred to two previous pharmaceutical trademark cases handled by advocate Gupta. In one instance, a single-judge imposed a penalty of ₹10 lakh for similar nondisclosures, while another case was denied interim relief due to the nondisclosure of a cease-and-desist notice and opposition proceedings.
More Read
Implications and Court’s Decision
The court noted that the leniency shown in prior cases seemed to have encouraged the lawyer’s conduct. “The leniency shown by the courts is being mocked at by the counsel for the respondent herein, by devising means and methods to overreach the explicit requirement of law to make full disclosure of all facts and documents between the parties,” the court remarked.
In light of the persistent pattern of misstating the cause of action, aimed at acquiring ex-parte orders, the bench vacated the injunction granted to Celagenex. The court dismissed its interim relief application and imposed a penalty of ₹2 lakh. Additionally, the seized products of Nugenesys were ordered to be released.
The court clarified that Celagenex was equally accountable since it had signed a Statement of Truth asserting that all material facts had been disclosed. Advocate Amar Shankar represented Nugenesys and Mandlekar in the proceedings.
