Delhi High Court invokes James Bond to call out lawyer for repeated suppression of facts

The Delhi High Court recently invoked a line from Ian Fleming’s James Bond novel Goldfinger while flagging a pattern of wilful suppression of facts by a lawyer in at least three trademark suits [Nugenesys Vs Celagenex].

A Division Bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that advocate Sachin Gupta repeatedly failed to disclose cease-and-desist notices and other material documents while filing suits seeking ex-parte injunctions.

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. A repeated event is no longer random, but is a deliberate act,” the Court said.

The observations came while allowing an appeal filed by Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and its promoter, Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar, against an ex-parte injunction restraining them from using the trademark ‘RewireX’.

The injunction was obtained by Celagenex Research (India) Private Limited, which sells nutraceutical products under the registered trademark ‘NUREWIRE’.

Celagenex claimed that it learnt about the sale of products under the RewireX mark in May 2026. However, the Division Bench found that the company had issued a cease-and-desist notice to Nugenesys in October 2025 and opposed its trademark application in January 2026.

Neither development was disclosed in the plaint. Instead, the relevant documents were “tucked away” in a compilation under what the Court termed an obscure description.

The Court concluded that Celagenex had attempted to project a recent cause of action to create urgency and obtain an injunction without notice to Nugenesys.

The Bench then referred to two earlier pharmaceutical trademark suits filed through advocate Gupta. In one, a single-judge had imposed ₹10 lakh costs after finding that material facts had been suppressed. In another, interim relief was denied because a cease-and-desist notice and opposition proceedings were not disclosed.

The Court said the leniency shown in the earlier cases appeared to have emboldened the lawyer.

“The leniency shown by the courts is being mocked at by the counsel for the respondent herein, by devising means and methods to overreach the explicit requirement of law to make full disclosure of all facts and documents between the parties,” the Court said.

The Bench held that the three cases revealed a persistent pattern of misstating when the cause of action had arisen, with the intention of securing ex-parte orders.

It, therefore, vacated the injunction granted to Celagenex, dismissed its interim relief application and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on the company. The seized Nugenesys products were also ordered to be released.

The Court clarified that Celagenex was equally responsible since it had signed a Statement of Truth affirming that all material facts had been disclosed.

Advocate Amar Shankar represented Nugenesys and Mandlekar

[Read Judgment]