Disobedience per se does not amount to contempt, and the terms of the order passed by the Court are sacrosanct in contempt jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

CCP(O) 19/2023 (under Article 215 of the Constitution of India)

1. This is a contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking initiation of action against the defendants for having committed contempt of this Court by wilfully and contumaciously disobeying order dated 2nd June 2022 passed by this Court in CS (Comm) 302/2022.

2. In my considered opinion, the nature of the dispute that the petitioner has sought to raise in this contempt petition cannot be decided by a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction, though it may afford the petitioner a right to seek independent legal remedies.

3. Para 8 of the order dated 2nd June 2022, passed by this Court, whereby CS (Comm) 302/2022 was decreed, reads thus:

"In view of the above, the present suit is decreed in terms of the relief of permanent injunction as sought in paragraph 38 (a), (b) and (c), against Defendant No. 1. It is however made clear that the Defendant No. 1 would be free to use the mark "PANTRA". Decree sheet be drawn accordingly."

4. Prayers (a), (b) and (c) in para 38 of the plaint, in terms of which the plaintiff's suit was so decreed, read thus:

"38. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant the following reliefs in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendants:

a. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their Directors, Proprietors, Partners, as the case may be, their assignees in business, their distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers/chemists, servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations under the impugned mark PANTRACID or any other trade mark as may be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trade mark PANTOCID, amounting to infringement of registered trade mark under no. 791979, 4632166, 4646473 and 4494365;

b. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their Directors, Proprietors, Partners, as the case may be, their assignees in business, their distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers/chemists, servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations under the impugned PANTRACID, its label and carton packaging or any other carton packaging as may be colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the Plaintiff's PANTOCID, its label and carton packaging amounting to infringement of copyright of the Plaintiff therein;

c. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their Directors, Proprietors, Partners, as the case may be, their assignees in business, their distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers! chemists, servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations under the impugned mark PANTRACID, its label and carton packaging or any other trade mark as may be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trade mark PANTOCID, its label and carton packaging amounting to passing off of the Defendant's goods and business for those of the Plaintiff's;"

5. Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that he is restricting the scope of this contempt petition to disobedience, by the petitioner, of prayer (b) in para 38 of the suit, which seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants and all others acting on their behalf from directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations (i) under the mark PANTRACID or (ii) in a label, carton or packaging which is a colourable imitation or a substantial reproduction of the PANTOCID label, carton and packaging adopted by the plaintiff.

6. It is nobody's case that the defendant has, after the passing of the order dated 2nd June 2022, ever dealt with any product under the name PANTRACID. There is, therefore, clearly no disobedience, by the defendan