Back
VIJAY BISHNOI, ARUN BHANSALI
Kutbuddin Kanorwala – Appellant
Versus
Upkar Agrofoods Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. These proceedings titled as under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC') have been initiated by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 24.02.2020 passed in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 854/2019 : Kutbuddin Kanorwala v. Upkar Agrofoods Private Limited & Anr.
2. It is, inter-alia, indicated that the petitioner had filed the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Commercial Court, Udaipur whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC had been rejected. The Court on 24.02.2020 while admitting the appeal and ordering for issuance of notices, on stay application restrained the respondents from using the disputed trade mark as mentioned in Annexure-IV, Annexure-V and Annexure-VI annexed with the memo of appeal and in any other similar trade mark. The respondents were also restrained from using the trade name - 'Z.A. Konerwala'. It is alleged that the respondents have willfully and deliberately flouted the order dated 24.02.2020.
3. Submissions have been made that after passing of the order dated 24.02.2020, the counsel for the petitioner sent a caution notice (Annex.
In contempt proceedings, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required, and willful disobedience must be established. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a men....
Willful disobedience of court orders, even if later complied with, can lead to significant penalties to uphold the authority of the court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the finding of willful disobedience of the court's injunction order by the respondent, leading to the imposition of a two-week simple imprisonment ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the interim injunction order and the importance of preventing diversion of traffic from the plaintiff's website to that of a compe....
Power to order civil imprisonment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A curtails an individual's fundamental right, albeit through a process of law.
Scope of execution proceedings are irrelevant for contempt jurisdiction of High Court.
The court established that third parties can be held liable for contempt if they knowingly assist in violating court orders, reinforcing the court's authority to enforce compliance.
Wilful disobedience of a court order is a contempt of court and is punishable under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
