CM(M)-IPD 41/2026 and connected matter $~56 and 57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010366012026 + CM(M)-IPD 41/2026 KRBL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Siddhant Sekhri and Mr. Mankaran Singh, Advocates. versus P.K. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar, Ms. Sunanda Tulysan, Ms. Shweta Pattnaik and Ms. Kashish Maheshwari, Advocates. 57 # CNR No. DLHC010366022026 + CM(M)-IPD 42/2026 KRBL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Siddhant Sekhri and Mr. Mankaran Singh, Advocates. versus P.K. OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar, Ms. Sunanda Tulysan, Ms. Shweta Pattnaik and Ms. Kashish Maheshwari, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R % 11.08.2026 CM 194/2026 in CM(M)-IPD 41/2026 CM 195/2026 in CM(M)-IPD 42/2026 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Applications stand disposed of. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:04:05 CM(M)-IPD 41/2026 and connected matter CM(M)-IPD 41/2026 and CM(M)-IPD 42/2026 3. CM(M)-IPD 41/2026 is filed by the Petitioner challenging order dated 01.08.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in I.A. No. 01/2026 in TM No. 40/2016 titled ‘KRBL Limited v. P.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.’, to the extent the joint application filed by the parties seeking extension of time to conclude the evidence has been dismissed. The suit was instituted by the Petitioner herein restraining the Respondent from using the trademark/label/trade dress DIYA allegedly being similar to Petitioner’s trademark/label AARATI. 4. CM(M)-IPD 42/2026 is filed by the Petitioner challenging order dated 01.08.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in I.A. No. 02/2026 in TM No. 19/2026 titled ‘KRBL Limited v. P.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.’, to the extent the joint application filed by the parties seeking extension of time to conclude the evidence has been dismissed. The suit was instituted by the Petitioner seeking permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from using the mark BEMISAAL allegedly infringing Petitioner’s mark BEMISAL. 5. Issue notice. 6. Mr. Akhil Sachar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. 7. Learned counsels for the parties jointly submit that the subject suits were instituted in 2010 and the record is voluminous running into hundreds of pages and the documents are required to be traced, collated and compiled from the old records, before they can be exhibited and proved in evidence and therefore, six months’ extension of time was sought by the parties to conclude the evidence, which has been denied by the learned Trial Court on the ground that 16 years have passed since the suits were filed and any adjournment at this stage will further delay the disposals, overlooking that This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:04:05 CM(M)-IPD 41/2026 and connected matter grave prejudice will be caused if parties are unable to lead evidence effectively. 8. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 9. Reading of the impugned orders, both dated 01.08.2026, shows that the learned Trial Court dismissed the joint applications of the parties seeking extension of six months to conclude evidence on the ground that being among the 20 oldest matters pending in the Court, the suits were earmarked in the category of ‘targeted matters’ as per the action plan for reduction of arrears and any adjournment will delay the disposal. Suits have been fixed for 17.08.2026 for filing the report of the Local Commissioner. 10. In my view, learned Trial Court cannot be faulted for making an endeavour to dispose of the suits at the earliest looking at the fact that the suits have been pending for 16 years. However, considering that records are old and voluminous and both parties need some time to collate them and lead evidence effectively, it will be in the interest of justice to grant extension of six months, subject to the caveat that neither party will seek further extension. 11. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and impugned orders dated 01.08.2026 in both the petitions are set aside. Further period of six months from today is granted to the parties to conclude evidence, making it clear that neither party shall seek and/or will be granted extension beyond six months. If any party fails to complete its evidence within the extended time, it shall do so at its own peril. 12. Petitions are disposed of with no expression on the merits of the case. JYOTI SINGH, J AUGUST 11, 2026/YA This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:04:05