The case of Ramji Lal Agarwal vs. Sourav Agarwal revolves around a dispute over the right to use the trade name "Sindharam Sanwarmal" in the dry-fruits, spices, and dry-vegetables business. The plaintiff, Ramji Lal Agarwal, sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant, Sourav Agarwal, from using the trade name within a one-kilometer radius of the plaintiff's shop, citing a family agreement that divided business rights among family members. The defendant opposed the suit, arguing that the trade name was a family asset and that the agreement was not binding on him. The dispute raises questions about family business agreements, trade name rights, and the applicability of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

• Detailed Factual Background:
  • The business "Sindharam Sanwarmal" was originally established by Mangi Lal Agarwal, the grandfather of the defendant and father of the plaintiff.
  • Over time, his five sons joined the business, expanding it across India.
  • After the death of Mangi Lal Agarwal in 2006 and his wife in 2016, a Family Agreement was executed on January 13, 2017, to divide the family business among the heirs.
  • The agreement allowed different branches of the family to continue using the trade name "Sindharam Sanwarmal" with a prefix or suffix, but restricted any new business under this name within a one-kilometer radius of the existing shops.
• Allocation of Shops:
  • The plaintiff, Ramji Lal Agarwal, was allotted a shop at 43/44 Cotton Street, Kolkata, operating under the name “Sindharam Sanwarmal.”
  • The defendant's father, Mohan Kumar Agarwal, was allotted a different shop at the same location, operating under the name “Shree Hanuman Stores.”
  • After the death of the defendant’s father in 2019, the defendant took over the shop but started using the name "Sindharam Sanwarmal Mewawala," which the plaintiff claims is a violation of the Family Agreement.
  • The defendant argued that the trade name was a coparcenary asset under Hindu law, granting him the right to use it.
• Detailed Procedural Background:
  • The plaintiff filed an application (GA No. 1 of 2023) for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using the trade name within a one-kilometer radius.
  • The defendant filed an application (GA No. 2 of 2023) for dismissal of the suit, arguing that:
    • The agreement was not binding on him as he was not a signatory.
    • The suit was time-barred since he had been using the trade name since 2017.
    • The dispute fell under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, making it not maintainable before this court.
• Issues Involved in the Case:
  • Whether the Family Agreement dated January 13, 2017, was binding on the defendant despite him not being a signatory?
• Detailed Submission of Parties:
  • Plaintiff's Arguments:
    • The Family Agreement was signed by all branches of the family and applied to heirs and legal representatives.
    • The defendant’s shop was originally under the name “Shree Hanuman Stores,” and he only started using the name "Sindharam Sanwarmal Mewawala" in 2017, violating the agreement.
    • Clause 3 of the agreement expressly prohibited starting a business under "Sindharam Sanwarmal" within one kilometer of the plaintiff’s shop.
    • The defendant cannot benefit from the agreement (by using the shop allotted to his father) while claiming that it does not bind him.
  • Defendant's Arguments:
    • The trade name belonged to the joint family and was a coparcenary asset, which he was entitled to use.
    • The Family Agreement was not binding because he was not a signatory to it.
    • The agreement was a commercial arrangement rather than a binding legal document.
    • The plaintiff had waived his rights by allowing the defendant to operate under the disputed name for over five years since 2017.
    • The suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act.
    • The dispute was a commercial matter and should have been filed before the appropriate Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
• Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by Parties:
  • The defendant relied on:
    • M.N. Aryamurthy & Another vs. M.D. Subbaraya Setty (1972) 4 SCC 1 – arguing that if all family members do not accept a family arrangement, it is not binding.
    • Kalyani (Dead) by LRs. vs. Narayanan & Ors., 1980 Supp SCC 298 – contending that family agreements require consent from all affected members.
    • Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. vs. M.J. James (2022) 2 SCC 301 – asserting that the plaintiff delayed filing the suit and thus lost his right to claim an injunction.
  • The court referred to:
    • Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2020) 15 SCC 585 – holding that disputes over immovable property used for business fall under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
• Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
  • The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the agreement was not binding, noting that he was enjoying the benefits of the shop allotted under the agreement while refusing to comply with its terms.
  • The court found that the defendant had indeed started using “Sindharam Sanwarmal Mewawala” within a one-kilometer radius, in violation of Clause 3 of the agreement.
  • However, the court ruled that the dispute fell under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it involved trademark rights and commercial agreements related to immovable property.
  • Since the case was not filed before the appropriate court, the suit was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, without ruling on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.
• Final Decision:
  • The plaint was returned to the plaintiff, allowing him to file it before the appropriate Commercial Court.
  • GA No. 1 of 2023 (injunction request) was dismissed.
  • GA No. 2 of 2023 (defendant’s application to dismiss) was allowed.
  • CS No. 126 of 2023 (the main suit) was dismissed.

Law Settled in This Case:
Family agreements bind heirs if they accept benefits under them. Commercial disputes over business names and property fall under the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts. A party cannot approbate and reprobate—accept benefits from an agreement while denying its obligations. A suit filed in an incorrect jurisdiction is liable to be dismissed, even if the plaintiff has a valid claim.

Case Title: Ramji Lal Agarwal Vs. Sourav Agarwal
Date of Order: March 12, 2025
Case No.: CS No. 126 of 2023
Name of Court: High Court at Calcutta
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539