The maintenance of court authority requires strict compliance with injunctions, where violations result in contempt, meriting imprisonment and property attachment.

JUDGMENT :

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant - Anamika Prakashan under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘the CPC’), inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 7th July, 2025 passed by the ld. District Judge-12, Commercial Court, Central, Delhi in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC in the Contempt Petition No. 21/2024 titledVani Prakashan (through Proprietor Ms Ameeta Maheshwari) v. Mahendra Mishra (deceased) through LRs. & Anr.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two months in Civil Prison and attachment of the property of the Appellant has also been directed vide the impugned order for a period of one year on the ground that the Appellant is guilty of contempt of the orders dated 5th December, 2020 and 20th December, 2023 passed in the commercial suit being CS (Comm) No. 1753/2020 titled Vani Prakashan vs. Mahendra Mishra & Anr.

4. The brief background of the present case is that, both the Appellant/Defendant - Anamika Prakashan and Respondent/Plaintiff – Vani Prakashan, are publishing houses. One Mr. Mahendra Mishra (deceased) was the author of the book titled ‘Bhartiya Cinema’ (hereinafter ‘the subject book’).

5. An agreement dated 2^nd August, 2018 was signed between Vani Prakashan and Mr. Mahendra Mishra. In terms of the said agreement, Vani Prakashan had to publish the subject book, which was an anthology of Indian cinema. The agreement vested rights of the said book in Vani Prakashan including the copyright in the work. Disputes appear to have arisen between the author and Vani Prakashan, due to which the author appears to have passed on the rights in the subject book to the Appellant - Anamika Prakashan who thereafter published the same.

6. Aggrieved by the said publication by the Appellant, Vani Prakashan filed a suit before the Commercial Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts being CS (Comm) No. 1753/2020. The prayer in the said suit was for a restraint order against the Appellant/Defendant from publishing the subject book. In the said suit, vide order dated 5^th December, 2020, an ex-parte order of interim injunction was passed in the following terms:

“15. It is therefore ordered that till the next date of hearing, the defendants are restrained from the sale or offering for sale the book titled “Bhartiya Cinema” published by the defendant no.2 under the authorship of defendant no.1, in any form (i.e. physical, electronic or kindle etc.) and on any sale platform, whether online or offline. This obligation shall commence on the expiry of seven days of the service of this order upon the defendant no. 2, so that the defendant no. 2 has a reasonable time at its disposal to do the needful.”

7. The said ex-parte injunction was, thereafter, confirmed and made absolute on 20^th December, 2023. At that stage, the allegation by Vani Prakashan was that in violation of the injunction order, the Appellant had published and sold the subject book on e-commerce platforms including Flipkart, Amazon as also through offline methods. Accordingly, Vani Prakashan had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. The said order dated 20^th December 2023 reads as under:

“Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has taken me through the Interim Order dated 05.12.2020 and para no.14 and 15 thereof. Ld. Counsel submits that the defendant no.2 was restrained from sale or offering for sale, the book titled “Bhartiya Cinema” published by defendant no.2 under the authorship of defendant no.1 in any form (i.e. physical, electronic or kindle etc. ) and on any sale pla