Delhi High Court: In a commercial suit filed by Bajaj Finance Limited (plaintiff) against, a platform operating under the name “SettlementGuru” (defendant) for unlawfully interfering in its lawful business by inducing customers to default on their loan obligations on the assurance of securing settlements for amounts substantially lower than the outstanding dues., a Single-Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J., granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and issued directions to protect the Bajaj Finance trademark, commercial interests and public standing.
The plaintiff is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and a registered Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC-D) with the Reserve Bank of India. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of lending and acceptance of public deposits and has a diversified lending portfolio across retail, SMEs and commercial customers across India. It claims continuous operations since 2007 and a current loan book of approximately Rs. 36.37 million, with a “AAA” rating from CRISIL, ICRA and CARE.
The plaintiff asserted that “Bajaj” has become a well-known household name and enjoys substantial goodwill and reputation in the market, supported by continuous commercial use and multiple trademark registrations in Class 36 for “Bajaj Finance” and allied device marks.
The plaintiff alleged that Defendant 1 was operating a platform under the name “SettlementGuru” through various social media platforms and a website (www.settlementguru.in), claiming expertise in ensuring that customers settle their Debt for less than their outstanding. The platform purportedly induced borrowers of the plaintiff to default on their loan repayments on the assurance that settlements would be secured at substantially reduced amounts.
It was further alleged that Defendant 1 uploaded call recordings purportedly between customers and recovery agents of the plaintiff, displayed settlement letters allegedly executed on the plaintiff’s letterhead, and used the plaintiff’s registered trademarks. According to the plaintiff, such material was “false, misleading, stage managed and per se defamatory” and amounted to unlawful interference with its contractual relations and infringement of its registered trademarks. The plaintiff placed on record a large number of URLs and social media links containing the impugned content and sought urgent ad-interim relief restraining such activities.
The Court observed that the social media platforms and URLs belonging to Defendant No.1 were being misused to infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiff. The Court noted the plaintiff’s extensive commercial presence, its continuous and regular use of trademarks, and its substantial goodwill built over years of operation.
The Court held that the use of the plaintiff’s trademarks in purported settlement deeds and related content “prima facie, appears to be dishonest.” Since the trademarks were registered, the Court held that the balance of convenience was to be in favour of the plaintiff. The Court further observed that if injunction were not granted, “the reputation and goodwill of the petitioner may be injured.”
The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and issued the following directions —
-
Defendant 1 was restrained from “directly or indirectly, unlawfully and tortiously interfering in the business of the plaintiff by inducing, inciting, and misleading the customers/borrowers” to breach their loan agreements.
-
Defendant 1 was restrained from publishing “per se defamatory and malicious statements” against the plaintiff on social media platforms.
-
Defendant 1 was restrained from using the plaintiff’s registered trademarks “Bajaj Finance” and allied device marks in any manner whatsoever.
-
Defendant 1 to 5 were directed to take down and/or remove all the impugned URLs and weblinks forthwith.
-
Defendant 3 (X Corp.) was deleted from the array of parties since the relevant account had already been suspended.
-
The plaint was directed to be registered as a suit, and further pleadings were ordered to be completed in accordance with law.
[Bajaj Finance Ltd. v. Manish Singh, CS (COMM) 63/2026 with I.A. Nos. 1851—1855/2026, Decided on 22-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Karan Luthra, Mr. Ankit Banati, Ms. Aarushi Tiku, Mr. Piyush Thanvi, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Akshay Sharma, G.P, Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Ms. Yogya Bhatia, Counsel for the Union of India
Mr. Ankit Parhar and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Counsel for the Defendant 3
Mr. Neel Mason, Ms. Ekta Sharma, Mr. Udit Tewari, Ms. Surabhi Katare, Counsel for the Defendant 4