{"id":6545,"date":"2025-07-21T10:53:40","date_gmt":"2025-07-21T10:53:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=6545"},"modified":"2025-07-21T10:57:03","modified_gmt":"2025-07-21T10:57:03","slug":"conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences\/","title":{"rendered":"Conditional Leave to Withdraw the Suit and Its Legal Consequences"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Mongia_Steel_Ltd_vs_Saluja_Steel_Power_Pvt_Ltd_%E2%80%93_Trademark_Copyright_Dispute\"><\/span>Mongia Steel Ltd. vs. Saluja Steel &amp; Power Pvt. Ltd. &#8211; Trademark &amp; Copyright Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Overview\"><\/span>Case Overview<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The case of <strong>Mongia Steel Limited Vs. Saluja Steel and Power Private Limited<\/strong>, decided by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi on <strong>17 July 2025<\/strong>, 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\u2019s 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.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences\/#Mongia_Steel_Ltd_vs_Saluja_Steel_Power_Pvt_Ltd_%E2%80%93_Trademark_Copyright_Dispute\" >Mongia Steel Ltd. vs. Saluja Steel &amp; Power Pvt. Ltd. &#8211; Trademark &amp; Copyright Dispute<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences\/#Case_Overview\" >Case Overview<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/conditional-leave-to-withdraw-the-suit-and-its-legal-consequences\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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 \u201cMONGIA\u201d and a photo device of its director, Mr. Gunwant Singh Mongia\u2014colloquially known as the \u201cDevice of Sardarji.\u201d These marks gained substantial goodwill in the market.<\/p>\n<p>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 \u201cSALUJA GOLD with Device of Sardarji,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>No new or fresh cause of action should be introduced.<\/li>\n<li>No documents issued after the original suit date may be relied upon.<\/li>\n<li>Reliefs must be limited to those contemplated in Paragraph 5 of the withdrawal application.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>The respondent also invoked the limitation period under Article 57 of the Limitation Act, 1963, asserting that copyright claims from 2014 were time-barred.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court referred to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>V. Rajendran &amp; Anr. v. Annasamy Pandian<\/em>, (2017) 5 SCC 63 \u2013 Withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) must be conditional and limited.<\/li>\n<li><em>Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil<\/em>, AIR 1957 SC 363 \u2013 Time-barred claims and procedural bypass not allowed.<\/li>\n<li><em>Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy<\/em>, (2001) 8 SCC 561 \u2013 The doctrine of relation back is not universally applicable.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>The Court rejected the appellant\u2019s argument that poor legal advice justified the reintroduction. It emphasized that procedural errors do not override judicial orders or limitation bars.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>The Court warned against setting a precedent that would allow procedural misuse to defeat judicial safeguards and statutory limitations.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Mongia Steel Limited vs. Saluja Steel and Power Private Limited<\/li>\n<li><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 17 July 2025<\/li>\n<li><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> Commercial Appeal No. 08 of 2023<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2024:JHHC:26916-DB<\/li>\n<li><strong>Court:<\/strong> High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi<\/li>\n<li><strong>Judges:<\/strong> Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:<\/b>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.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Mongia Steel Ltd. vs. Saluja Steel &amp; Power Pvt. Ltd. &#8211; Trademark &amp; 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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-6545","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6545","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6545"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6545\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}