Zee Learn LimitedversusSANGAM LOK KALYAN SHIKSHA SAMITI

                                                                               901-arbp-68-2026.doc


                      Shabnoor
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                       IN IT’S COMMERCIAL DIVISION

                                    ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 68 OF 2026

SHABNOOR              Zee Learn Limited                              … Petitioner
AYUB                             V/s.
PATHAN
Digitally signed by
                      Sangam Lok Kalyan Shiksha Samiti               … Respondent
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2026.09.10
18:26:02 +0530



                      Priya Nigwekar i/b Pallavi Chari for the Petitioner.


                                                    CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                    DATED      : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      By the present Petition, the Petitioner has filed an Arbitration
                      Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
                      1996. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent has committed
                      breach of the Academic Alliance Agreement dated 12 November
                      2014 and the Intellectual Property Rights Agreement dated 12
                      November 2014. The Petitioner has sought an injunction
                      restraining the Respondents from using, without authority, the
                      Petitioner's registered trademark, trade name and logo.

                      2.      The facts and circumstances which have led to the filing of
                      the present Petition are as follows. The Petitioner is a company
                      incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged, among
                      other things, in the field of education. Its activities include
                      producing or procuring educational software, providing and




                                                          1
                                                       901-arbp-68-2026.doc


imparting training for pre-primary learning and conducting
vocational courses through its Alliance Partners across the country.
These services are provided through computer, multimedia,
internet, offline and online modes under the trademark, trade
name, logo and device "MOUNT LITERA", "MOUNT LITERA ZEE
SCHOOL", "MLZS" and various other marks having different
prefixes and suffixes. The Respondent is an Educational Society
which had entered into an agreement with the Petitioner. Under
the said agreement, the Respondent was given a limited and non-
transferable licence to conduct the MLZS Programme under the
Petitioner's trademark "MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL" at its school
situated at Hariharpur, Ajgarha Bypass, Behind Gokul Dham,
Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, 486 002.

3.    The Petitioner claims to be the true owner and registered
proprietor of the trademarks "MOUNT LITERA" and "MOUNT
LITERA ZEE SCHOOL". It had adopted these trademarks before
any other trader in relation to its services and business in the field
of education. Such activities include producing or procuring
educational software, providing and imparting training for pre-
primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary learning,
conducting vocational courses through its franchisees across the
country through offline and online modes and providing other
related goods and services falling under Classes 9, 35, 41, 42 and
43. These activities are carried on under the trademark, trade
name, logo, brand and device "MOUNT LITERA", "MOUNT LITERA
ZEE SCHOOL", "MLZS" and other variants having different prefixes
and suffixes.



                                  2
                                                    901-arbp-68-2026.doc


4.   On 12 November 2014, the Petitioner and the Respondent
agreed to work together in accordance with the terms and
conditions contained in the Academic Alliance Agreement and the
Intellectual Property Rights Agreement. Accordingly, the parties
executed the Academic Alliance Agreement, the Intellectual
Property Rights Agreement and a Memorandum of Understanding
("MOU") for conducting the Mount Litera Zee School Programme
("MLZS Programme") at the said school. The said arrangement was
arrived at pursuant to the discussions held between the parties on
20 October 2014. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent
failed to comply with its obligations under the Academic Alliance
Agreement. The Respondent failed to pay the Alliance Fee payable
to the Petitioner for the Academic Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The
amount claimed as outstanding is Rs. 8,46,357/- (Rupees Eight
Lakh Forty-Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Seven Only).
According to the Petitioner, the said amount continues to remain
due and payable by the Respondent.

5.   The Petitioner has placed photographs on record which,
according to it, show that the Respondent continues to use the
Petitioner's name, brand, logo and trademark. The Petitioner states
that the Academic Alliance Agreement was terminated under
Clause 14.9 thereof on account of the Respondent's failure to make
payment. According to the Petitioner, upon such termination, the
Respondent's right under the Agreement to use the Petitioner's
intellectual property came to an end. On this basis, the Petitioner
has filed the present Petition seeking ad-interim and interim
injunctions against the Respondent.



                                 3
                                                      901-arbp-68-2026.doc


6.    Despite service of the Petition, the Respondent has failed to
appear before the Court and has not contested the claims made by
the Petitioner. The Petition is, therefore, being considered and
decided on its merits on the basis of the material placed on record.

REASONS AND FINDINGS

7.    I have considered the statements made in the Petition, the
documents produced before the Court and the reliefs asked by the
Petitioner. The Respondent was duly served with the Petition. Even
after service, the Respondent has not appeared before the Court.
Therefore, there is no material from the Respondent before the
Court to dispute the facts stated by the Petitioner. However, merely
because the Respondent has remained absent, the statements of
the Petitioner cannot be accepted without looking into the material
on record. The Petitioner still has to show that there is sufficient
basis for granting relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.

8.    The case of the Petitioner is that the parties entered into the
Academic Alliance Agreement, the Intellectual Property Rights
Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12
November 2014 for conducting the Mount Litera Zee School
Programme in the Respondent's school. Under this arrangement,
the Respondent was given a limited and non-transferable licence to
conduct the MLZS Programme using the Petitioner's trademark
"MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL". Therefore, the Respondent did
not get any separate or independent right to use the Petitioner's
name, trademark, logo or other intellectual property. The right to




                                 4
                                                    901-arbp-68-2026.doc


use these things was given only under the agreements between the
parties. The Petitioner has stated that the Respondent failed to
carry out its obligations under the Academic Alliance Agreement.
The Respondent failed to pay the Alliance Fee for the Academic
Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. As stated by the Petitioner, an amount
of Rs.8,46,357/- is still payable by the Respondent. The Petitioner
has relied upon Clause 14.9 of the Agreement and has stated that
the Agreement was terminated because the Respondent failed to
make the required payment. According to the Petitioner, after such
termination, the Respondent no longer had any right to use the
Petitioner's intellectual property.

9.    At this stage, the Petitioner's claim for money and the
protection sought for its intellectual property have to be
considered separately. The claim of Rs.8,46,357/- may be decided
by the Arbitrator in accordance with the agreement between the
parties. This Court, while considering the present Petition, is not
required to finally decide the whole monetary dispute between the
parties. The question which is required to be considered now is
whether the Petitioner has placed sufficient material to show that
its trademark, trade name, logo and other related intellectual
property require protection until the dispute is considered in
arbitration.

10.   The Petitioner has stated that the Respondent was permitted
to use the Petitioner's trademark only because of the agreement
between the parties. This fact is important. When permission to
use another person's trademark is given under an agreement, the
right to use the trademark depends upon that agreement. If the



                                      5
                                                       901-arbp-68-2026.doc


permission comes to an end, the person using the trademark must
show some other right if such use is to continue. In the present
case, the Respondent has not appeared before the Court and has
not shown any right to use the Petitioner's trademark.

11.   The material placed on record contains photographs which,
according to the Petitioner, show that the Respondent continues to
use the Petitioner's name, brand, logo and trademark. The final
issue regarding the proof and evidentiary value of these
photographs can be considered in the proper proceedings. At this
stage, however, the photographs are relevant for considering
whether there is a use, or possibility of use, of the Petitioner's
trademarks. The photographs, when considered along with the
Petitioner's case that the Agreement has been terminated, provide
sufficient material for granting interim protection.

12.   In these circumstances, the relief sought under prayer clause
(a) is required to be considered. The purpose of this prayer is to
prevent the Respondent from to represent that its educational
services are connected with the Petitioner's brand after the
arrangement between the parties has ended. The Petitioner has
placed material to show that "MOUNT LITERA" and "MOUNT
LITERA ZEE SCHOOL" are its registered trademarks. It has stated
that the Respondent was given only a limited and non-transferable
licence to use the mark for the MLZS Programme. The Respondent
has not placed any material before the Court showing that this
permission continued after termination of the Agreement.




                                  6
                                                           901-arbp-68-2026.doc


13.   The Court has to consider the possibility of confusion in the
minds of students, parents and members of the public. If the
Respondent is permitted to continue using the Petitioner's
trademark, logo or a deceptively similar mark, a person seeing
such name or mark may understand that the Respondent's school
or services continue to be associated or affiliated with the
Petitioner. At this stage, it is not necessary to finally decide
whether the Respondent intended to create such confusion. When
the earlier right to use the mark was based upon a licence,
continued use after the end of that right may give an impression
that the earlier association is still continuing.

14.   In these circumstances, I find that the Petitioner has
established a prima facie case for protecting its trademark and
related indicia. The balance of convenience is in favour of the
Petitioner. The Respondent has not shown before the Court that it
has any right to use the Petitioner's marks. If the Respondent is
allowed to continue using the marks during the arbitration, the
Petitioner's proprietary and commercial rights may continue to be
affected.   The     harm     resulting    from      such    unauthorised
representation may not be adequately compensated merely by an
award of money at a later stage. At the same time, the injunction
has to be kept within the limits of the grievance which has been
established before the Court. At this interim stage, there is no
material requiring the Respondent to be stopped from conducting
its educational activities generally. The restraint is required only
against the use of the Petitioner's trademark, brand, logo or any
deceptively similar mark in a manner which gives an impression of



                                    7
                                                         901-arbp-68-2026.doc


association or connection with the Petitioner. Prayer clause (a), to
this limited extent, therefore deserves to be granted.

15.   The Petitioner has sought relief under prayer clause (b). This
prayer is connected with prayer clause (a). The Petitioner's
grievance is not limited to the use of the exact words "MOUNT
LITERA" or "MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL". If the Respondent is
stopped from using the exact trademark but is permitted to use
another name, representation, material or device which gives an
impression that the school continues to be affiliated or connected
with the Petitioner, the protection granted by the Court would not
serve its purpose. The material before the Court shows that the
Respondent's    association   with    the   Petitioner's    educational
programme arose from the agreements entered into between the
parties. The Petitioner has stated that this arrangement has been
terminated. The Respondent has not appeared before the Court to
show that any right under the agreements continues in its favour.
In these circumstances, there is sufficient basis to restrain the
Respondent from making any representation which gives an
incorrect impression that the earlier association or affiliation with
the Petitioner continues. The relief under prayer clause (b) is
justified. However, the words "any indicia whatsoever" in prayer
clause (b) cannot be given an unlimited meaning. They cannot
mean that the Petitioner can prevent the Respondent from making
every possible reference to the Petitioner, irrespective of the nature
of such reference. The restraint has to be understood in the context
of the dispute before the Court. The Respondent is to be restrained
from using any name, representation, device, material or other



                                  8
                                                      901-arbp-68-2026.doc


indication for showing or representing that there is an existing
association, affiliation or connection with the Petitioner when
there is no permission or right for making such representation.

16.   The Petitioner has sought discovery and preservation of
documents under prayer clause (c). The relief under prayer clause
(c) is different from the injunctions sought under prayer clauses
(a) and (b). The purpose of discovery and preservation is to ensure
that relevant documents and evidence are not withheld, destroyed
or lost before the arbitral proceedings or other appropriate
proceedings. The Petitioner has alleged that the Respondent
continues to use its trademark, name, brand and logo even after
termination of the Agreement. The Petitioner has relied upon
photographs showing such alleged use. Therefore, documents and
information relating to the Respondent's use of the Petitioner's
trademarks may have direct relevance to the dispute. However, the
prayer for complete discovery of "any and all documents and
information" is very wide. An interim order should not permit an
unrestricted examination of the entire affairs and documents of the
Respondent when the dispute concerns the Petitioner's and
intellectual property rights. Therefore, the direction has to be
limited to the relevant documents and information. It should cover
documents and information concerning the use of the Petitioner's
trademarks, trade name, logo, brand or other indicia and
transactions or activities connected with such use.

17.   The Respondent is required to preserve the documents and
evidence in its possession which relate to the present dispute. Such
a direction is proper because these documents may be required for



                                 9
                                                       901-arbp-68-2026.doc


deciding the disputes between          the parties. Directing the
Respondent to preserve material already in its possession, relating
to the alleged use of the Petitioner's intellectual property, does not
cause substantial prejudice to the Respondent. Such preservation
will help in deciding the dispute on the basis of the relevant
material available with the parties.

18.   I therefore find that the Petitioner has established a sufficient
prima facie case for granting relief under prayer clauses (a), (b)
and (c), subject to keeping the reliefs within proper limits. The
Respondent has neither appeared before the Court nor produced
any material showing that it has a subsisting licence or any other
legal right to use the Petitioner's trademark, trade name, logo or
brand after termination of the Academic Alliance Agreement.

19.   As regards prayer clauses (d), (e) and (f), the Petitioner has
sought appointment of a Receiver for management of the school
affairs, opening of an Escrow Account and furnishing of a Bank
Guarantee of Rs.8,46,357/-. These prayers mainly concern the
monetary and financial dispute between the parties. On the
material presently available, I am not satisfied that such extensive
measures are necessary for protecting the Petitioner's trademark or
preserving the subject matter of the arbitration. The Petitioner's
monetary claim can be decided and recovered in the arbitral
proceedings. The material before the Court does not justify taking
over the management of the school or directing the Respondent to
route all its financial transactions through an Escrow Account. The
Respondent's failure to appear before the Court cannot by become
a reason for granting every relief sought by the Petitioner. Each



                                  10
                                                       901-arbp-68-2026.doc


relief has to be considered on the basis of the material placed on
record. In the present case, the Petitioner has shown that
immediate protection of its trademark and related intellectual
property is required. However, the same material does not show
that appointment of a Receiver, opening of an Escrow Account or
furnishing of a Bank Guarantee is necessary at this stage.

20.   On an overall consideration of the pleadings, the agreements
referred to by the Petitioner, the allegation that the Agreement was
terminated because of non-payment, the alleged continued use of
the Petitioner's trademark and the photographs placed on record, I
am satisfied that the Petitioner has established a prima facie case
in respect of prayer clauses (a) to (c). The balance of convenience
lies in favour of granting such protection. If the Respondent is
permitted to continue representing that its services are connected
with the Petitioner during the pendency of the dispute, the
Petitioner's proprietary and rights may continue to be affected. It is
therefore appropriate to prevent such possible harm at this stage
rather than leave the Petitioner to seek compensation after
completion of the arbitral proceedings.

21.   Accordingly, prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) deserve to be
granted, subject to a clear limitation. The restraint shall be
confined to the Petitioner's trademarks, trade name, logo, brand
and other indicia and to any representation showing an existing
association, affiliation or connection with the Petitioner. The order
shall not prevent the Respondent from carrying on its educational
activities in accordance with law.




                                 11
                                                        901-arbp-68-2026.doc


22.   In view of the above findings, the following order is passed

      (i) The Petition is partly allowed.

      (ii) The Respondent, its trustees, directors, proprietor,
      shareholders, office-bearers, assigns in business, franchises,
      affiliates, subsidiaries, licensees, agents and all persons
      acting for or on its behalf are restrained, pending the arbitral
      proceedings and until orders, from providing, offering or
      advertising   educational    or   allied   services   under      the
      trademarks, brand, logo or device "MOUNT LITERA",
      "MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL", "MLZS/MUZS" or any
      deceptively similar mark, in a manner which represents or
      suggests any association with or affiliation to the Petitioner.

      (iii) The Respondent and all persons acting for or on its
      behalf are restrained from using any name, representation,
      device, material or other indicia for showing or representing
      that the Respondent or its services continue to have any
      association, affiliation or connection with the Petitioner,
      unless such use is otherwise authorised in writing by the
      Petitioner or permitted by law.

      (iv) The Respondent shall make discovery of documents and
      information in its possession, custody or control relating to
      the use of the Petitioner's trademarks, trade name, logo,
      brand or other indicia and transactions or activities
      connected with such use. The Respondent shall preserve all
      documents and other evidence in its possession relating to
      the subject matter of the present dispute.



                                  12
                                              901-arbp-68-2026.doc


(v) The reliefs sought in prayer clauses (d), (e) and (f) are
rejected at this stage.

(vi) The remaining reliefs shall stand governed by the above
findings and are disposed of accordingly.


                                      (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                          13