Delhi High Court Dismisses Perjury Plea Against Britannia In GOOD DAY Trademark Dispute With Desibites Snacks

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against Britannia Industries Ltd and its authorised representative in a trademark dispute over the mark “GOOD DAY”. The plea was filed by Desibites Snacks Pvt Ltd and its director.

The applicants alleged that Britannia had falsely stated on oath that it first became aware of their products only in the third week of October 2024. They also alleged that Britannia suppressed the fact that it had filed a rectification petition in 2018 against a trademark registration for “GOOD DAY” held by the director of Desi Bites, Roop Chand Agarwal, for papad.

The perjury application was moved after an ex parte ad interim injunction granted to Britannia on November 7, 2024, was vacated on February 18, 2025 with the consent of the parties. According to the applicants, Britannia had created a false sense of urgency to obtain that injunction.

They contended that Agarwal had been using the mark since 1999 and had secured registration in 2005. They further argued that Britannia was aware of this registration because it had itself filed rectification proceedings in 2018.

It was also alleged that Britannia masked the correct identity of the company by filing incorrect corporate records from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. This, according to them, amounted to deliberate suppression and misrepresentation.

Justice Tejas Karia, in a judgment delivered on February 28, 2026, rejected these allegations. The Court reiterated that perjury proceedings cannot be initiated lightly.

Citing settled law, the Court held that such proceedings “cannot be initiated on mere surmise or suspicion”. It further observed that there must be “clear evidence of the commission of the offence of perjury”.

The Court emphasised that proceedings should be initiated only in “exceptional circumstances where the Court is of the opinion that perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to secure some beneficial order from the Court”.

Examining the record, the court found that the confusion regarding the corporate identity was plausible. It noted that “the Defendants themselves have erred in mentioning the correct name of Defendant No.1 company on the packaging of their products”.

The Court further observed that there was “nothing to suggest that the Plaintiff was aware that Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal was connected to Defendant No. 1 as its Director” at the time the suit was filed.

In these circumstances, the Court held that no case had been made out suggesting “deliberate suppression, concealment or misrepresentation” on Britannia's part. The perjury application was accordingly dismissed.

The court also allowed Britannia's applications seeking amendment of its plaint and addition of Roop Chand Agarwal and Jai Food Products as parties. It held that these steps were “necessary to determine the real controversy between the Parties”.

The newly added parties have been directed to file their written statements within 30 days of receipt of summons.