The court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction is limited to assessing deliberate non-compliance with specific court orders, not interpreting them beyond their explicit terms.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Present contempt petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold the Respondents No. 1 to 6 hereinabove, guilty of gross, deliberate and continuing contempt of the orders dated 17.10.2006, 30.05.2008 and the order dated 04.04.2016 along with the undertaking recorded in the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court;

b. That Respondents 1 to 5 who are responsible for the day-to-day management and conduct of affairs of the Respondent No.6 Company be punished with civil imprisonment and exemplary fine;

c. Attach the movable and immovable properties of the Respondents no. 1 to 6;

d. In case this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the same constitutes criminal contempt, the matter be referred to the Hon'ble Division Bench for taking appropriate action in accordance with law;

e. That immediate orders be passed directing the Respondents No. 1 to 6 as mentioned hereinabove, to comply with the 17.10.2006, 30.05.2008 and the order dated 04.04.2016 along with the undertaking recorded in the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court;

f. That immediate orders be passed directing the Respondent No.6 to file the true and correct accounts of its income and expenditure relating to its business of their JIVA Spas in this Hon'ble Court in compliance with the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, and if the same has been filed every six months, to direct the Respondent No. 6 to provide a copy of the same to the Petitioners;

g. That immediate order be passed directing the Respondent No. 6 to file true and correct accounts of the income from the advertisement and marketing of products under the mark `JIVA' and/or its sub-brands and to furnish a copy of the same to the Petitioners;

h. That immediate orders be also passed restraining the Respondent no. 6 from in any manner using the mark/word JIVA either as a trademark, trade name, corporate name, house mark or in any other manner;

i. Impose exemplary cost on the Respondents for committing acts amounting to contempt of this Hon'ble Court;

j. Pass any other order/s that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. Factual exposition, as set out by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs is that vide order dated 17.10.2006, this Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against Respondent No.6 herein (Defendant No.1 in the suit) and its Managing Director (Defendant No.2 in the suit), restraining them from adopting and/or using the trademark `JIVA' or any other identical or deceptively similar or confusing mark, in relation to their goods and services and from manufacturing, advertising and marketing, etc. any goods or services under the said trademark. In an appeal against the said order, the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.05.2008 partly allowed the appeal, whereby the order dated 17.10.2006, restraining the Appellants therein from using the trademark `JIVA' for their Spas run in the hotels established by them, was vacated, subject to certain conditions, while the order to the extent it restrained the Appellants from selling, using or offering for sale/use any ayurvedic product under the trademark `JIVA', was confirmed.

3. In 2014, it is averred, that when it came to the knowledge of the Petitioners that the orders were being violated by Respondent No.6, a contempt petition being CCP(O) No.126/2014 was filed, wherein, after hearing the parties extensively, the Court had tak