Mongia Steel Ltd. vs. Saluja Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. – Trademark & Copyright Dispute
Case Overview
The case of Mongia Steel Limited Vs. Saluja Steel and Power Private Limited, decided by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi on 17 July 2025, revolves around a trademark and copyright dispute that highlights the importance of procedural compliance, conditional withdrawal of suits, and the boundaries of initiating fresh litigation. This case underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on enforcing procedural rigour to prevent the misuse of legal processes and also addresses the limitation on reinserting causes of action that were previously abandoned. The decision also explores the intersection of intellectual property law with civil procedure, particularly in the context of claims for trademark and copyright infringement.
Factual Background
Mongia Steel Limited (formerly Mongia Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., later Mongia Steel Pvt. Ltd., and ultimately Mongia Steel Ltd.) is a well-established company engaged in manufacturing and marketing metal products such as TMT Bars, Joists, Channels, and related materials. Since its incorporation in 1995, the company has used trademarks and artistic works featuring the word “MONGIA” and a photo device of its director, Mr. Gunwant Singh Mongia—colloquially known as the “Device of Sardarji.” These marks gained substantial goodwill in the market.
In contrast, Saluja Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 2004 by Amarjeet Singh Saluja (brother of Mr. Mongia) and his sons, later began manufacturing TMT Bars under the mark “SALUJA GOLD with Device of Sardarji,” featuring a bust of Mr. Amarjeet Singh Saluja. Mongia Steel alleged that this was deceptively similar to their mark and constituted trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off.
Procedural Background
The initial suit, Title Suit No. 6 of 2015 (later Commercial Case No. 06 of 2015), was filed before the Commercial Court, Ranchi. Originally, it included trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. Later, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, an application was filed and allowed on 03.09.2015, deleting the copyright claims.
Mongia Steel subsequently sought to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC due to formal defects. The Court allowed withdrawal via order dated 29.09.2020, subject to three conditions:
- No new or fresh cause of action should be introduced.
- No documents issued after the original suit date may be relied upon.
- Reliefs must be limited to those contemplated in Paragraph 5 of the withdrawal application.
Despite this, Mongia Steel filed Commercial Case No. 63 of 2020, reintroducing copyright claims. Saluja Steel moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The Commercial Court accepted and rejected the plaint on 15.03.2022. Mongia Steel appealed this rejection.
Core Dispute
The key legal question was whether Mongia Steel, after voluntarily abandoning copyright claims and receiving conditional leave, could reintroduce those claims in the new suit. This raised issues under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC about whether this reintroduction violated the court-imposed conditions and amounted to a new cause of action.
Discussion on Judgments
The appellant argued that the claims were part of a continuous cause of action flowing from the same transaction, inadequately pleaded earlier due to counsel inefficiency. The respondent emphasized the deletion order of 03.09.2015 and the conditions of the withdrawal order dated 29.09.2020, stating that these barred any reintroduction.
The respondent also invoked the limitation period under Article 57 of the Limitation Act, 1963, asserting that copyright claims from 2014 were time-barred.
The High Court referred to:
- V. Rajendran & Anr. v. Annasamy Pandian, (2017) 5 SCC 63 – Withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) must be conditional and limited.
- Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363 – Time-barred claims and procedural bypass not allowed.
- Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561 – The doctrine of relation back is not universally applicable.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that the permission to refile was conditional. Since copyright claims were deleted in 2015, they were no longer part of the suit during withdrawal. Reintroduction constituted a new cause of action and violated procedural safeguards and limitation statutes.
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that poor legal advice justified the reintroduction. It emphasized that procedural errors do not override judicial orders or limitation bars.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. It found that reintroducing the claims breached the conditions of the 2020 order and created a new, time-barred cause of action.
The Court warned against setting a precedent that would allow procedural misuse to defeat judicial safeguards and statutory limitations.
Law Settled in This Case
When a suit is withdrawn under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC with conditions, those conditions are binding. A party cannot expand reliefs or reintroduce previously deleted claims. Courts will not tolerate procedural loopholes to circumvent limitation laws or judicial directives. Reintroduced claims after the expiry of limitation are barred and impermissible, even under the guise of correction.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mongia Steel Limited vs. Saluja Steel and Power Private Limited
- Date of Order: 17 July 2025
- Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 08 of 2023
- Neutral Citation: 2024:JHHC:26916-DB
- Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
- Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar
Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
