This judgment does not decide whether the air conditioners seized were counterfeit — the defendants' account that they dealt in scrapped and damaged goods was not disproved on that point, and exemplary damages were refused for that reason. The injunction had already been decreed before this application was decided.
- Case
- Voltas Limited v. M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises & Ors
- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:DHC:10010
- Bench
- Tejas Karia
- Judgment by
- Tejas Karia
- Case numbers
- CS(COMM) 632/2019
- Outcome
- Summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC on I.A. 24279/2023; suit finally disposed of. A permanent injunction had already been decreed on 8 September 2025; this judgment decides only damages and legal costs.
Damages and costs fixed; suit finally disposed of
The Delhi High Court has awarded Voltas Limited damages of ₹5,00,000 and legal costs of ₹5,07,500 in its trade mark suit against Shiv Shakti Enterprises, bringing a seven-year-old suit over air conditioners sold under the Voltas mark to an end.
Justice Tejas Karia decided the claim by summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the plaintiff's application. Defendant nos. 3 and 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay both sums within four weeks, and the decree sheet is to be drawn up accordingly.
The injunction in the suit had already been decreed on 8 September 2025, when the defendants agreed to suffer a decree of permanent injunction. The only question left in this application was the plaintiff's entitlement to damages and legal costs.
The suit, the seizure and the earlier decrees
Voltas is the registered proprietor of the mark VOLTAS in various classes, including class 11 for air conditioners and refrigerating equipment. It sued seeking a permanent injunction against defendant nos. 3 and 5, together with rendition of accounts, delivery up, damages and costs.
On 18 November 2019 the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against defendant nos. 3 and 5 and appointed a Local Commissioner. The Commissioner visited their premises on 23 November 2019 and seized one visiting card, two outdoor units of air conditioners, three boxes for outdoor units, one small box containing a motor and eleven remote controls, all bearing the Voltas mark.
The suit was decreed against defendant nos. 1 and 2 on 10 February 2025. On 8 September 2025, recording no objection from defendant nos. 3 and 5 and there being no contest, the court passed a decree of permanent injunction against them. The same order directed them to file VAT and GST returns for 1 November 2016 to 30 November 2019, and gave the plaintiff liberty to file an affidavit on legal costs.
The returns were never produced. On 18 March 2026 the defendants' counsel said the GST registration of defendant no. 5 had been suspended following a show-cause notice for cancellation dated 31 December 2025, so defendant no. 3 could not access the GST and VAT portal. The directions were put in abeyance, with liberty to the plaintiff to take other remedies.
Assembled air conditioners, affixed marks, held out as authorised
Voltas' case was that defendant nos. 1 and 2, from whom its investigator had purchased air conditioners, revealed that they procured them from defendant nos. 3 and 5. The modus operandi, it said, was to assemble unbranded air conditioners and then, on a customer's request, affix any mark on them, including Voltas'.
It further said defendant nos. 3 and 5 represented themselves as Voltas or its authorised service providers, harming its goodwill because the air conditioners were defective and posed safety risks. A letter from Durga Enterprises, recovered by the Commissioner, showed 63 air conditioners supplied by them had been returned as defective.
Invoices recovered by the Commissioner showed sales of 42 indoor and 42 outdoor units for ₹4,59,375, inverter air conditioners for ₹2,38,281.25 and renting of air conditioners for ₹87,000. Quotations and correspondence on Voltas letterheads showed the defendants holding themselves out as authorised dealers. Voltas quantified its claim at ₹7,84,656.25 in damages, plus legal costs of ₹8,80,282 and exemplary damages.
Voltas also relied on procedure: despite a last opportunity granted on 30 November 2023, defendant nos. 3 and 5 failed to file their affidavit of admission and denial of its documents, so on 12 January 2024 the documents were deemed admitted. The Commissioner's report, which no defendant had challenged, could be read in evidence under Order XXVI Rule 10(2).
Scrap and damaged goods, not counterfeits
Defendant nos. 3 and 5 denied selling counterfeit products. They said the Commissioner had found no counterfeit product at their premises, and that everything found there was original product. They dealt in scrapped and damaged electronic goods, including products sold as scrap by manufacturers, distributors and authorised service centres, at low prices with limited margins.
They said the return of 63 air conditioners proved nothing about counterfeiting, and that the indoor and outdoor units sold to Satish Enterprises on 4 April 2018 had been procured from various manufacturers and distributors and invoiced exactly as received. The visiting card bearing the Voltas mark, they said, only indicated that they dealt in products of various companies.
They accepted that they had been an authorised service centre of Voltas until 2012, when letterheads bearing the mark were printed, but said they had never represented themselves as Voltas or its authorised user or distributor after that.
Summary judgment and the IPD Rules measure of damages
With the injunction already decreed, the court said the only issue was whether Voltas was entitled to damages and costs, and in what quantum. It applied Rule 20 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, which lists the factors for fixing damages: lost profits, the infringer's profits, notional royalties, duration, intention and mitigation.
The application was for summary judgment under Order XIII-A, which permits judgment without recording evidence where the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
Invoice value is not profit; ₹5 lakh on a rough-and-ready basis
The court accepted that the Commissioner's report recorded air-conditioner units, boxes, a motor, remote controls and a visiting card bearing the mark at the defendants' premises, and that a 27 June 2018 quotation for 500 LED televisions at ₹7,000 each showed the mark still being used in their business after 2012. The defendants' documents were deemed admitted after they failed to complete admission and denial of them.
But it refused to equate the invoice value of ₹7,84,656.25 with profits. The defendants said they dealt in old, defective and scrapped air conditioners, and Voltas had placed no computation of the profits they earned after accounting for procurement, repair or refurbishment costs, including scrap value, nor any computation of its own loss. The whole sum could not be awarded as damages merely because the invoices reflected transactions of that value.
The court nevertheless held Voltas entitled to damages. The defendants had been Voltas' authorised service centre and knew its rights; their continued use of the mark on quotations and correspondence after 2012 showed an intention to present themselves as its authorised service centre and benefit from its goodwill. Weighing the transaction values, the duration of unauthorised use and the degree of intention under Rule 20, it awarded ₹5,00,000.
It refused exemplary damages. Voltas had relied on Johnson & Johnson v. Pritamdas Arora, where ₹1 crore was awarded for counterfeit surgical devices found non-sterile and contaminated, and expired devices repackaged with falsified expiry dates. Here the defendants maintained that no counterfeit product was found at their premises and that all products found were original, since they dealt in scrapped and damaged goods. On that record, no case for exemplary damages was made out.
On costs, the court awarded ₹5,07,500: ₹2,07,500 towards court fees, ₹1,00,000 towards the Local Commissioner's fees and ₹2,00,000 towards reasonable counsel's fees, against the ₹8,80,282 claimed.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: why the award is smaller than the claim
This judgment illustrates how damages are actually fixed in intellectual-property suits. The plaintiff proved infringement and obtained an injunction, but damages still had to be proved. An invoice total is a measure of turnover, not of profit, and a court will not award turnover as damages without evidence of what the infringer earned after costs, or what the plaintiff lost.
That is why Rule 20 of the IPD Rules matters: it tells the court to look at lost profits, the infringer's profits, notional royalties, duration, intention and mitigation. Where exact figures cannot be ascertained, the court may make a rough-and-ready assessment, as it did here. But a rough assessment is not a free one: the plaintiff must still put the foundational facts on record, as Voltas did through the Commissioner's report.
The refusal of exemplary damages shows the other side of the same discipline. Exemplary damages punish deliberate counterfeiting. Where the defendants' account is that the goods were genuine but scrapped, and that account has not been disproved, the court will not treat unauthorised use of the mark as counterfeiting.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the court refuse to award the full ₹7,84,656.25 claimed as damages?
- Why was the ₹1 crore exemplary-damages award in Johnson & Johnson not followed in this case?
- What did the defendants' failure to file VAT and GST returns, and to complete admission and denial of documents, cost them?
