The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to the Bombay Group of the Gandhi family in a long-running dispute over the use of the "Vadilal" brand, holding that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the existing arrangement until an arbitral tribunal decides the parties' rights.
Justice Amit Borkar ruled on a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, observing that the petitioners had established a prima facie case for interim relief arising from the 1993 family settlement governing the division of the Vadilal business.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces its roots to a family settlement executed on 30 March 1993 after differences emerged within the Gandhi family over the management of the Vadilal business. Under the settlement, the business was divided between the Bombay Group and the Ahmedabad Group.
The petitioners contended that they received exclusive and long-standing rights to manufacture, market and sell ice cream and certain other products under the "Vadilal" brand in Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and the then undivided Andhra Pradesh. They argued that these rights formed part of a broader family settlement implemented through several agreements, including the Memorandum of Agreement, Branding Agreement, Registered User Agreement and an Irrevocable Power of Attorney.
According to the petitioners, the dispute escalated after a communication dated 26 May 2026 purported to terminate the Registered User Agreement and revoke the Irrevocable Power of Attorney, thereby threatening their continued use of the brand.
The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioners' right to use the trademark flowed only from the Registered User Agreement, which had been validly terminated because of alleged breaches relating to quality standards.
Court's Observations
Justice Amit Borkar noted that the dispute required examination of multiple agreements executed as part of the same family arrangement and that, at the interim stage, the Court was only required to determine whether protection should be granted until arbitration.
The Court observed that the petitioners had been exercising the disputed business rights for more than three decades and that immediate interference with those rights could alter the existing position before the arbitral tribunal examined the merits.
The bench observed:
"For the limited purpose of considering interim protection, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have established a prima facie case requiring preservation of the subject matter of the dispute until the learned Arbitral Tribunal adjudicates upon the rights and liabilities of the parties."
At the same time, the Court clarified that it was not deciding whether the termination notice was valid or whether either side had final rights over the disputed trademark arrangements. Those issues, it said, must be decided during arbitration.
The Court further stated:
"The above protection shall not be construed as recognition of any final right in favour of the petitioners or as invalidating the termination dated 26 May 2026."
Court's Decision
The High Court partly allowed the petition and restrained the concerned respondents from acting upon the termination communication dated 26 May 2026 insofar as it interfered with the petitioners' claimed rights under the 1993 family settlement.
It also restrained them from obstructing the petitioners' continued use of the "Vadilal" brand in the territories claimed by them until the arbitral proceedings conclude or until further orders of the arbitral tribunal.
The Court directed the petitioners to continue complying with all food safety laws, maintain statutory licences, preserve quality-control records, and permit reasonable inspections after prior notice.
It also clarified that neither party should portray the interim order as a final determination of their rights and that all issues relating to termination, interpretation of the agreements and ownership claims remain open for adjudication before the arbitral tribunal.
Case Details
Case Title: Shailesh R. Gandhi & Ors. v. Late Ramchandra R. Gandhi & Ors.
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 18386 of 2026
Judge: Justice Amit Borkar
Decision Date: 30 June 2026
, E20 Petrol-300x169.webp)
