When equity meets duplicity, courts must sometimes refuse relief even in technically strong cases. A striking example is a recent decision of the Bombay High Court (BHC) in Velji Karamshi Vaid v. V3 Fashion & Ors. (Order dated September 9, 2025), where the High Court declined to grant an interim injunction not because one party clearly lost on merits but because both parties had unclean hands before the court. 

BACKGROUND & FACTS

In Velji Karamshi Vaid, the plaintiff claimed rights over the marks “V3” and the device “Volume 3” in the garments/trading space. The defendants, V3 Fashion & others, used similar marks like “V3 STYLE.” The crux of the dispute was prior use  who had started using the mark earlier, and in what form. 

However, the litigation became messy. The plaintiff’s (Velji Karamshi Vaid) pleadings showed inconsistencies: while the plaint asserted use since 2016, their trademark application (filed in 2018) was based on “proposed to be used,” and in the trademark examination report the use date allegedly appeared as September 2018. These varying claims undermined the credibility of the plaintiff’s (Velji Karamshi Vaid)  assertions. 

At the same time, the defendants’(V3 Fashion & Ors.) defense rested heavily on invoices and documents purporting prior use since 2017. But serious questions were raised about those invoices  an ex-partner filed an affidavit alleging forgery, saying his GST number and contact details had been used without authorization. The defendants (V3 Fashion & Ors.) did not satisfactorily contest or explain these allegations.

Further compounding the problem, the plaintiff had earlier adopted a contradictory position in registration proceedings  it had represented to the Trademarks Registry that other “V3” marks (e.g. “V3 Fashion Studio,” “V3 Jeans”) did not conflict with its mark, whereas before the High Court it claimed that the defendant’s (V3 Fashion & Ors.) use was inherently deceptive. This suppression or shifting of stand was held to be material suppression.

Faced with these mutual problems, the court held that neither party had come with clean hands. Since the entire case depended heavily on proving prior adoption and usage, and the record was inconsistent and tainted, the High Court declined to entertain any discretionary interim relief. 

LEGAL DOCTRINE: THE CLEAN HANDS PRINCIPLE

The doctrine of “unclean hands” is a well-established equitable maxim: he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. In simple terms, a party that acts unfairly, fraudulently, deceitfully, or conceals material facts in relation to the subject matter of the claim is disentitled from equitable relief, even if they might have a technically valid right. Courts view equitable remedies (like injunctions) as privileges, not absolute rights, and the doctrine ensures that the judicial process is not misused. 

In India, the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle in Tomorrowland Ltd v. HUDCO (Feb 2025), holding that a party seeking discretionary relief (such as interest under Section 34, or injunctive relief) must act with bona fides. If the litigant’s conduct is tainted e.g. suppression, misrepresentation, forum-shopping  relief may be withheld. 

Moreover, Indian jurisprudence also emphasizes that courts should not become “abettors of inequity.” In Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that the clean hands doctrine applies not only to writ petitions under Articles 32/226/136 but to all courts and judicial forums, reinforcing the idea that falsehood, suppression, or misstatements should not be rewarded. 

High Courts too have applied this principle. The Calcutta High Court has held that applicants for interim relief must disclose all material facts; failure to do so may lead to denial of relief and imposition of costs.

ANALYSIS & REASONING OF THE BHC DECISION

What makes the BHC’s decision in Velji Vaid particularly instructive is that both sides were criticized not merely the plaintiff. Courts usually scrutinize plaintiffs more closely, but here the bench found the defense equally flawed:

1. Inconsistent Pleadings and Suppressed Facts

The plaintiff’s (Velji Karamshi Vaid) shifting timelines and failure to disclose prior contradictory positions before the Registry was material suppression. A party cannot pick and choose favorable statements while hiding others. 

     2. Questionable Documentary Evidence by Defendant

The invoices on which the defendants (V3 Fashion & Ors.) relied were shadowed by accusations of forgery. The absence of satisfactory rebuttal or explanation weakened their case. 

    3. Equitable Discretion in Interim Relief

Since the dispute hinged entirely on prior adoption, and because the record was riddled with inconsistency, the court found that substance could not be reliably assessed at the interim stage. The only fair recourse was to refuse the interim injunction rather than risk granting relief on a flawed record. 

Thus, the BHC invoked equity to deny relief  not because the plaintiff was necessarily wrong, but because neither party’s conduct was worthy of the court’s discretionary protection.

IMPLICATIONS & LESSONS

The Velji Vaid case carries multiple important takeaways for litigants, trademark practitioners, and equity jurisprudence in India:

• Plead with consistency: A litigant must maintain coherence in claims across forums (pleadings, registration, affidavits). Shifting timelines or contradictory positions can sabotage credibility.
• Full disclosure is essential: Suppressing prior positions or prosecution history can lead to disqualification from equitable relief.
• Defendants too must act in good faith: Courts may examine defenses critically; forged documents, unexplained inconsistencies, or lack of counter-evidence can work against them.
• Interim relief is discretionary: Even if a party has a prima facie case, misconduct may tilt the balance against granting injunctions. Appellate courts are cautious to interfere unless discretion is abused. 
• Clean hands extends to all parties: Equity does not favor defectors. Even in vigorously contested cases, the court may deny protection to both sides where fairness is lacking.
• Beyond trademarks: Though Velji Vaid concerns trademark law, the clean hands doctrine applies broadly in equitable relief matters  injunctions, specific performance, interlocutory reliefs  wherever discretion and fairness intertwine.

CONCLUSION

The BHC’s decision in Velji Karamshi Vaid v. V3 Fashion is a cautionary tale that in disputes of prestige and property, the process matters as much as the claim. Courts may refuse relief not because the law is weak, but because the litigants’ hands are stained.

In equitable remedy jurisprudence, the maxim “He who comes into equity must come with clean hands” is more than a proverb  it is a gatekeeper. And in this case, both parties were barred from entry.