Pratap Kumar Ray,J.

Both these two appeals, the connected applications and one cross appeal arose out of judgment and order dated 27th July, 2006, directing detention in civil prison passed in G.A. No. 4223 of 2004, by learned Trial Judge in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code on the allegation of disobedience of the order of injunction passed by Trial Court on 3rd September, 2004 on an interlocutory application of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 registered as G.A. No. 3392 of 2004 in connection of the suit being C.S. No. 235 of 2004. Both appeals, applications and cross appeal is taken up for analogous hearing and a common judgment is delivered.

The said suit was filed by Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘Glaxo’) against Heinz India Private Limited (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘Heinz’) and Zee Telefilms Limited (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘Zee’) alleging airing of a disparaging advertisement aiming at and to undermine the reputation and efficacy of the product “Horlicks”, which is the product of Glaxo in the mind of the public at large by preparing a story board depicting the sequential benefit of health improvement by consuming health drink “Complan”, a product of Heinz in comparison to the health drink “Horlicks” with the following reliefs:

“(a) Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants and each of them and their servants, agents or assigns from publishing by telecast or otherwise the aforesaid advertisement referred to in paragraph 10 herein or any advertisement or publicity similar thereto and in any form reflecting adversely on the plaintiff’s product ‘Horlicks’ in any manner whatsoever.

(b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 and its servants, agents or assigns from publishing any advertisement similar or substantially similar to the advertisement published in Ananda Bazar Patrika being annexure “E1” hereto and from continuing to telecast or causing to be telecast only further the advertisement/publicity similar to or substantially similar to the advertisement mentioned in paragraph 13 hereof, a copy whereof is annexure “E1” hereto or containing any comparison with Brand “H” or any brand referring to HORLICKS directly or indirectly.

(c) Special damage as claimed in Paragraph 41.

(d) In addition to injunction, enquiry into damage and Decree for damages for such sums and in respect of such periods as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

(e) Receiver,

(f) Injunction;

(g) Costs

(h) Further or other reliefs.”

An interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 was moved on service of the copy of the said application to the defendant no. 1 of the suit, the Heinz, by the plaintiff, said Glaxo, registered as G.A. No. 3390 of 2004 on the following reliefs:

“(a) A fit and proper person be appointed Receiver to take possession of the Production Master Copy and the Artworks of the said advertisement material lying with various television channels all across India including Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and keep the same in his safe custody until disposal of the suit.

(b) An order of injunction restraining the Respondents and each of them and their servants, agents or assigns from publishing by telecast or otherwise the aforesaid advertisement referred to in paragraph 10 herein or any advertisement or publicity similar thereto and in any from reflecting adversely on the plaintiff’s/petitioner’s product “Horlicks” in any manner whatsoever;

(c) An order of injunction restraining the Respondent No.1 and its servants, agents or assigns from publishing any advertisement published in Ananda Bazar Patrika being Annexure “E1” hereto and from continuing to telecast or causing to be telecast any further advertisement/publicity similar to or substantially similar to the advertisement mentioned in paragraph 13 hereof a copy whereof is annexure “E” or containing composition with Bran