Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Of Suppression Findings In Trademark Suit, Says Advocate Cannot Shift Duty To Junior

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record for Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. against its earlier findings that two material documents had been wilfully suppressed in the plaint filed in a trademark suit over the mark 'RewireX'.

The counsel sought a review in his personal capacity, arguing that the documents had not been brought to his attention by the company.

The court held that a filing counsel cannot avoid responsibility for ensuring full disclosure by blaming junior colleagues or the client.

“We note with disappointment that the contents of the review petition reflect a continuing lack of acknowledgement by the filing counsel of his responsibility as an officer of the court to ensure full disclosure in a plaint. The applicant fails to accept accountability and instead seeks to apportion the blame to the junior colleagues and the client for the non-disclosure as some kind of justification,” the bench observed.

A bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was considering a plea seeking a review of its August 20, 2026 judgment.

That judgment arose from Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against an ex parte interim injunction granted in the trademark dispute.

Celagenex and Nugenesys are involved in a dispute over the mark 'RewireX'. Celagenex had filed a trademark suit after Nugenesys adopted the mark and sought its registration. A Single Judge had granted an ex parte interim injunction in favour of Celagenex.

The Division Bench found that Celagenex had not disclosed in its plaint a legal notice issued to Nugenesys on October 29, 2025. It had also not disclosed objections filed before the Registrar of Trade Marks on January 27, 2026.

The court found that the non-disclosure amounted to wilful suppression. It consequently vacated the interim injunction.

The August 20 judgment also referred to other proceedings involving the same filing counsel. The bench found that there had been instances of non-disclosure of documents in more than one matter involving the counsel. It also imposed costs on Celagenex for the wilful suppression.

The counsel then sought a review of those findings in his personal capacity. He contended that the October 29, 2025 notice and the January 27, 2026 objections had not been brought to his attention by Celagenex.

He argued that, had the documents been brought to his attention, they would ordinarily have been pleaded because they supported the company's case.

The bench was not persuaded. It noted that both documents formed part of the papers filed with the plaint. However, they were included in a bundle under an obscure description.

The court held that the filing counsel had a legal obligation to examine and verify every document before filing it with the plaint. That responsibility could not be avoided by claiming that the client had failed to point out the documents.

The counsel had also argued that the non-disclosure should be treated as an instance of inadvertence rather than part of a pattern of wilful suppression. The bench rejected the comparison on which this argument was based and found no ground to review its earlier conclusion.

It also held that the reference to the other proceeding relied upon by the counsel could not form a basis for review.

On the costs imposed on Celagenex, the court held that the counsel had no standing to seek a review in his personal capacity. Since the costs had been imposed on the company, he could not challenge them in his personal capacity.

Finding no ground to review its earlier findings and holding that the counsel could not challenge the costs imposed on the company in his personal capacity, the Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition.