Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vijay Bishnoi, Arun Bhansali, JJ.
Kutbuddin Kanorwala – Appellant
Versus
Upkar Agrofoods Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Civ. Contempt Pet. No. 18/2020
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt Petition - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 2-A - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - [WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE] - [TRADE MARK VIOLATION] - [Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971] - The court discussed the willful disobedience of the order dated 24.02.2020, the issuance of trade mark caution notice, and the alleged violation of the injunction granted by the court. The court emphasized the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in contempt proceedings and concluded that no case was made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 24.02.2020 passed in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 854/2019. The respondents were restrained from using the disputed trade mark and trade name, but the petitioner claimed that the respondents continued to flout the interim order by selling and marketing goods with the disputed trade mark.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents did not willfully disobey the order and that the trade mark caution notice and the invoices presented as evidence did not conclusively prove disobedience. The court also noted that the nature of the proceedings was in the nature of seeking proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged willful disobedience of the court's order, the issuance of the trade mark caution notice, and the violation of the injunction by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in contempt proceedings and highlighted that when two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. The court concluded that no case was made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no substance in the allegations of willful disobedience and violation of the court's order by the respondents.
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. 2) to the respondents on 02.03.2020, which was duly delivered to the respondents on 04.03.2020. The petitioner also got published a trade mark notice in the local newspaper on 07.03.2020 (Annex. 4), with reference to order dated 24.02.2020, however, instead of following the interim order granted by this Court on 24.02.2020, the respondents got issued a trade mark caution notice (Annex. 5) making false averments essentially by way of counter-blast to the trade mark notice (Annex. 4) issued by the petitioner pursuant to order passed by this Court. Submissions have also been made that the respondents have indulged in selling and marketing of the spices with trade mark 'Upkar' and firm name 'Z.A. Kanorwala' and continue to flout the interim order granted by this Court. Invoices dated 11.03.2020, 12.03.2020, 07.05.2020, 19.06.2020 and 24.06.2020 alongwith infringing packets have been annexed as Annex. 6.
4. Based on the said submissions, it has been prayed that the respondents be punished for committing contempt of this Court and be further directed to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 24.02.2020.
5. At this stage, it may be noticed that while the application has been titled as under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC, the entire averments made in the application are in the nature of an application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Even the application itself has been titled as 'Civil Contempt Petition' and in the relief clause, prayer has been made that the contempt application be allowed and the respondents be punished for committing the contempt of the Court.
6. A response to the application has been filed by the respondents, inter-alia, indicating that the order dated 24.02.2020 was passed ex parte by the Court, but as soon as the respondents came to know about passing of the order, they stopped using the disputed trade mark in compliance of the said order; the respondents have neither disobeyed the orders pass, nor intend to do so. Qua the notice (Annex. 5), produced by the petitioner, it is submitted that the caution notice has neither been published by the respondents, nor the same is in any way related to and/or relevant for the present proceedings.
7. Qua invoices, submissions have been made that the invoices have been issued by 'Upkar Thok Bhandar' and 'A.P. Agency', which have no relation with the respondents and that no material has been produced to substantiate the allegations as to how the respondents have any connection with the said invoices. It is further denied that the respondents have in any manner violated the directions issued by this Court. Rather, it is claimed that they are following the injunction granted by the Court and therefore, the application deserves dismissal.
8. No rejoinder to the reply has been filed.
9. L
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
