Back
ALOK ARADHE, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
T. Sudhakar Pai, S/o Late Ramesh Pai – Appellant
Versus
Manipal Academy Of Higher Education – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal under Section 13(1)(A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' for short) is filed against the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by X Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Commercial Misc. No.246/2021.
1.1 In the aforesaid order, the Commercial Court, exercising powers under Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) of the Code, held that the appellants are guilty of disobedience of the order of temporary injunction, dated 21.02.2019. Consequently, appellant No.1 is sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for three months and held liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation to the plaintiffs. Further, appellants No.2 and 3 and respondent No.5 of this appeal, (respondent No.3 in Misc. No.246/2021) are sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for one month and each of them is held liable to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-, to each of the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs are permitted to apply to attach the movable and immovable properties of the contemnors to recover the compensation amount, if not paid by the appellants.
2. Among other issues, the proportionality of
Power to order civil imprisonment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A curtails an individual's fundamental right, albeit through a process of law.
Willful disobedience of court orders, even if later complied with, can lead to significant penalties to uphold the authority of the court.
Violations of interim orders should be viewed strictly to maintain the rule of law, and the court should send a deterrent message to counterfeiters.
“3A Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which....
A party cannot disregard an interim injunction based on claims of jurisdiction; violation may lead to contempt punishment, maintaining the authority of court orders.
The court emphasized that evidence is required to establish breach of injunction orders, and punitive measures must be proportionate to the nature of disobedience.
Willful disobedience must be established for contempt under Order 39 Rule 2A; mere disobedience is insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
