JUDGMENT

I.A. 15066/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC) in CS(COMM) 469/2021

1. Interlocutory orders of injunction are passed by this Court, on a daily basis, in intellectual property matters. The Court finds itself faced, in several such cases, with applications under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by plaintiffs complaining that the defendants have violated the interim order of injunction. In many such cases - as in the present - the allegation is found to be true. The violation, however, generally stops on or before the date when the court issues notice on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A. The plaintiff, however, insists, and not without justification, that the defendant cannot be let off. A violator, asserts the plaintiff, is a violator, and deserves to be punished. The Supreme Court echoes this sentiment, in para 54 of Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 5 SCC 450:

"54. As has been held in Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao, (2013) 15 SCC 790, a violation of an interim or an interlocutory order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction ought to be viewed strictly if the rule of law is to be maintained. No litig