Royal Trading Company vs Royal Plast — IA/1061/2026

Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 20. Disposed: --DISPOSED OFF on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020059372026

e-Filing Number

16-02-2026

Filing Number

IA/5937/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

IA/1061/2026

Registration Date

23-Feb-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section 20

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Royal Trading Company

    Adv. Vikramaditya Chavan

  2. 2.Shiv Enterprise

    Adv. CHAVAN VIKRAMADITYA VIJAY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Royal Plast

  2. 2.Cello Plastic Industrial Works ORG Plaintiff No

  3. 3.Cello Household Products Private Limited ORG PLAINTIFF NO 2

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. DeshmukhView PDF

    The Bombay High Court allowed defendants Royal Trading Company and Shiv Enterprise's interim application to de-seal seized goods and remove infringing trademark marks, provided the process occurs under court-appointed receiver supervision with plaintiff representatives present. The defendants bear the receiver's costs, with de-sealing to occur within two weeks and a compliance report to be filed subsequently. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Due Matters - Adjourned OS

    Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. DeshmukhView PDF

  6. 20-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 17-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/1061/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court allowed defendants Royal Trading Company and Shiv Enterprise's interim application to de-seal seized goods and remove infringing trademark marks, provided the process occurs under court-appointed receiver supervision with plaintiff representatives present. The defendants bear the receiver's costs, with de-sealing to occur within two weeks and a compliance report to be filed subsequently. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case