Bombay High Court grants relief to ‘Bombay Group’ in Vadilal brand row with Ahmedabad Group

The Bombay High Court recently granted relief to ‘Bombay Group’ of the Vadilal ice‑cream business in connection with a dispute over the use of Vadilal brand name [Shailesh Gandhi & Ors v. Ramchandra Gandhi & Ors]

Justice Amit Borkar held that the Bombay Group's long‑standing rights to use the ‘Vadilal’ brand in western and southern states in India are prima facie rooted in a 1993 family settlement and not a mere commercial licence terminable at will.

The Court was ruling on a petition filed by Bombay Group's Shailesh Gandhi, his wife Bela and Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. seeking interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

They claimed permanent and irrevocable rights to manufacture and sell ice‑cream and juices under the ‘Vadilal’ name in Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh (including Telangana), based on a 1993 family settlement between the Bombay and Ahmedabad branches of the Gandhi family.

They moved the Court after Vadilal International Pvt Ltd (part of the Ahmedabad Group) issued a May 2026 communication to terminate the registered user agreement and revoke an irrevocable power of attorney, effectively denying them any right to use the ‘Vadilal’ brand.

The Court noted that four documents were executed on 30 March 1993 - a memorandum of agreement described as the “parent agreement”, a branding agreement, an irrevocable power of attorney and a registered user agreement (the 1993 family settlement agreements).

Justice Borkar held that prima facie, the parent agreement appeared to record the overall understanding between the two branches on separation of businesses, transfer of shares, division of territories and future use of the ‘Vadilal’ name, with the other documents implementing that arrangement.

“This shows that the Registered User Agreement was not an ordinary commercial licence but was a part of the family settlement under which the Bombay Group received permanent and irrevocable rights in the ‘Vadilal’ brand after giving up its shareholding and management rights in the Vadilal International,” the judge said. 

On a prima facie reading, the judge held that the four 1993 documents appear to form interconnected parts of one larger family arrangement, with the parent agreement as the umbrella document. 

The Court took note of the arbitration clause in the parent agreement which can extend to disputes under the subsequent agreements.

The Court prima facie noted that Vadilal International and Vadilal Industries Ltd. (both part of Ahmedabad Group) had acted for decades under the family settlement and said questions about their role and a proposed merger must be left to the arbitral tribunal.

Vadilal International argued that once the registered user agreement was terminated, there was “no relationship” left to protect, and any order allowing continued use of the mark would amount to a mandatory injunction restoring a dead contract. 

The judge distinguished between reviving a terminated licence and preserving rights claimed under a broader family settlement. 

The Bombay Group argued their brand rights originated in the parent agreement and branding agreement and operationalised through the registered user agreement and power of attorney.

Hence, it sought interim relief.

The Court held that relief was being sought to preserve disputed rights under the family settlement pending arbitration, not to conclusively restore a terminated commercial licence.

Hence, it passed a protective order in favour of the Bombay Group and restrained the Ahmedabad Group from acting on the 26 May termination letter.

The Court restrained the Ahmedabad group from continued use of the ‘Vadilal’ brand in Bombay Group's territories, and from transferring, licensing or creating third‑party rights in the disputed trademark and related rights. 

The order will operate during the arbitral proceedings and for 90 days after the arbitral award or until modified by the arbitral tribunal, the Court made it clear.

Senior Advocate Mustafa Doctor with advocates Rohan Cama, Hiren Kamod, Spenta Kapadiya, Kyrus Modi, Faraz Alam Sagar, Surya Sambyal, Aarti Abhyankar, Aditi Goyal, Urja Dhapre, and Prateek Ayyappan briefed by IndusLaw appeared for Bombay group.

Senior Advocate Venkatesh R Dhond with advocates Shyam Kapadia, Shalaka Patil, Ankit Pathak, Amaan Rahman and Harsh Khanchandani briefed by Trilegal appeared for members of the Ahmedabad group.

Senior Advocate Shiraz Rustomjee and advocates Prattek Pai, Ankit Pathak, Amaan Rahman and Harsh Khanchandani briefed by Trilegal appeared for Vadilal International. 

Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina with advocates Ativ Patel, Viloma Shah, Harshad Vyas, and Viraj Raiyani briefed by AVP Partners appeared for Vadilal Industries. 

[Read Order]