On a rather packed Thursday in Courtroom No. 12 of the Bombay High Court, Justice R.I. Chagla delivered a detailed and quietly firm order in a long-running dispute between The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.. The matter, reserved in June and pronounced on 13 November 2025, revolved around a sharp disagreement on how far the title “The New Indian Express” can travel beyond the southern states.
The atmosphere was tense, with both sides leaning heavily on three decades of family arrangements, bitter break-ups, and trademark battles.
Background
At the heart of this dispute lies the fragmented legacy of Ramnath Goenka, the founder of the Indian Express Group. After his death in 1991, a family split and corporate separation eventually crystallised in the 1995 Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) and a 2005 Supplemental Agreement.
Under these, Manoj Kumar Sonthalia’s faction obtained rights to publish under the title “The New Indian Express”, but strictly within Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, and certain Union Territories.
The Mumbai-based group led by Vivek Goenka retained the original “Indian Express” title along with nationwide rights.
Disputes resurfaced in 2024 when the Madurai group organised a public event in Mumbai under the banner “The New Indian Express – Mumbai Dialogues”, prompting The Indian Express to rush to court seeking an injunction.
Arguments in Court
Senior Counsel Darius Khambata, for the Plaintiff, argued that the Madurai group’s rights were never meant to extend outside the southern region.
“The bench observed, ‘The negative covenants are explicit—use is strictly limited to publication within the five states and nowhere else,’” Khambata emphasised repeatedly.
He described
“The New Indian Express” as merely a derivative of “Indian Express”, not an independent title, and said that allowing such use in Mumbai would “rewrite the settlement itself.”
On the other side, Senior Counsel Zal Andhyarujina leaned heavily on past conduct. He argued that both groups had, for years, promoted each other’s publications across India.
“The conduct shows a shared understanding,” he told the court, suggesting that the Plaintiff had knowingly accepted cross-promotion and could not now “turn around and claim breach.”
He also pointed to the Defendant’s trademark registration for “The New Indian Express” in 2005 and insisted they had built independent goodwill.
Court’s Observations
Justice Chagla took a cautious, text-first approach. The judgment makes it clear that the MoS is not a loose business arrangement but a consent decree binding, precise, and not open to broad interpretation.
The Court stressed that:
- Use of “The New Indian Express” is limited to publication in the specified southern territories.
- The agreements “contain negative covenants” meaning any use beyond what is allowed is automatically prohibited.
- Subsequent conduct or advertisements “cannot dilute or override” the unambiguous contractual language.
In the judge’s words, the agreements “were carefully structured to separate control, title and territorial use”, and promotion in other states could not be treated as an implied right.
Decision
The Court ultimately granted an injunction in favour of The Indian Express (P) Ltd., restraining Express Publications (Madurai) from:
- Using the title “The New Indian Express” in Mumbai or any region outside the five southern states and designated UTs,
- Using the title for events, promotions, programmes, or business activities outside the permitted territories,
- Using any mark deceptively similar to “Indian Express.”
The ruling ends firmly at the contractual boundary lines drawn nearly 30 years ago lines the Court refused to let either party redraw.
Case Title:- The Indian Express (P) Ltd. vs. Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.