- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB COMAP No. 256 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2025 BETWEEN: FLYOLA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, INDRAPRASTH AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE PARK, SECTOR-77, DELHI JAIPUR HIGHWAY, (NH-08), GURGAON, HARYANA, INDIA – 122 004. REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ANKUR JAIN, S/O MR. JINENDRA KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SANDEEP LAHIRI., ADVOCATE) AND: ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, REGENT INSIGNIA, NO.414, 3RD FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK, 17TH MAIN, 100 FEET ROAD, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB COMAP No. 256 of 2025 KORMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN., ADVOCATE A/W MS.GEETHANJALI K.V., ADVOCATE) THIS COMAP/COMMERCIAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH- 88), IN COMMERCIAL OS NO.1147/2024 WHEREBY THE RESPONDENTS APPLICATION IN IA NO.1 FILED U/O XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 CPC IS ALLOWED AND APPELLANT'S APPLICATION IN IA NO.5 FILED U/O XXXIX RULE 4 CPC IS DISMISSED AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IA NO. 1 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 ALLOW THE APPELLANTS APPLICATION IN IA NO. 5 FILED U/O XXXIX RULE 4 CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB COMAP No. 256 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) This appeal is filed calling in question the order dated 19.04.2025 in COM. O.S.No.1147/2024 on the file the LXXXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Commercial Court']. The Commercial Court, by the impugned order dated 19.04.2025, has allowed the respondent's application, I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, 'the CPC'], while rejecting the appellant's application, I.A.No.5 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, restraining the appellant from "infringing and passing of the plaintiff's trademark "OLA" till the disposal of the suit. The Commercial Court has thus confirmed the ex parte order granted on 28.08.2024. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB COMAP No. 256 of 2025 2. Sri. D. R. Ravishankar, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, and Sri. Ravi Raghavan, the learned counsel for the respondent, are heard on the appellant's request for a grant of ad interim order. The learned Senior counsel and the learned counsel propose to raise different grounds for and against the appellant's grievance with the Commercial Court's impugned order dated 19.04.2025. 3. However, it transpires from the respective submissions that the arguments before the Commercial Court on the applications were concluded on 29.11.2024 and the applications were reserved for Orders and there is a divergence in submissions on the alleged delay in the Commercial Court pronouncing the impugned order. Sri. D. R. Ravishankar contends that there was no further hearing after such date and the orders are pronounced on 19.04.2025 after almost 5 months, with Sri. Ravi Raghavan asserting that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB COMAP No. 256 of 2025 applications were listed on 29.01.2025 for Orders, but not pronounced and adjourned to be called on 19.04.2025 for Orders. 4. Crucially, Sri. D. R. Ravishankar, relying upon the time lag between the dates when the learned counsels were heard and the impugned order is proposed, proposes to canvass that the sustainability of the impugned order is seriously jeopardized as the true import of a set of very material circumstances such as that the appellant demonstrably is in business from the year 2002, that ‘OLA’ is a common family name from a particular community in North India, that the appellant is only operating aviation services and the respondent is in surface transport services; that the registration of appellant’s distinct trademark is not challenged are not examined though referred to cursorily. Sri Ravi Raghavan rebuts this canvass. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB COMAP No. 256 of 2025 5. On a careful consideration of all the circumstances, and including the submission that the respondent has begun proceedings for contempt against the appellant for violating the ex parte interim order granted on 28.08.2024 and the repercussions that could be, this Court is of the view that the Commercial Court in the fitness of things must hear the appellant and the respondent afresh on the applications and decide on the merits within a timeframe leaving open all questions to be addressed while also observing that this Court is not interfering with the ex parte interim order dated 28.08.2024. Sri. D. R. Ravishankar and Sri. Ravi Raghavan are also heard in this regard, and hence the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part, and the Commercial Court's impugned order dated 19.04.2025 is dissolved restoring the applications for reconsideration calling upon the Commercial Court to take up the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB COMAP No. 256 of 2025 restored applications for consideration on 09.06.2025 and dispose of these applications by 09.07.2025 being uninfluenced by the outcome in this appeal and any observation made in the impugned order 19.04.2025. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20