IMPORTANT POINT
Breach of injunction – Instead of being directly sent to civil prison, respondents can be directed to pay compensation.

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant (original plaintiff) and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (original defendants).

2. By this application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) the applicant is pressing for appropriate punitive orders against the respondents for having willfully disobeyed and violated the orders passed by this Court. It is emphasized that order dated 29/11/2023 passed by this Court granting ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a), which was duly served on the respondents on 11th December 2023, was violated with impunity and that the respondents continue to do so even today when this application is taken up for hearing.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant invited attention of this Court to the ad-interim order dated 29/11/2023, which was passed after the respondents had been repeatedly served in the matter. They chose not to appear before this Court. It was submitted that upon finding that a strong prima facie case was made out by the applicant in its favour, this Court granted the ad-interim order thereby temporarily restraining the respondents or their associates or affiliates from dishonestly using the registered trademarks and crucially restrained the respondents from infringing the registered trademark of the applicant in any manner.

4. It is the case of the applicant that despite service of the said adinterim order on 11/12/2023, it was found that the respondents continued to use the name “Lords” associated with their hotel. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the name of the hotel of the respondents continued to be featured on third party websites like www.makemytrip.com, www.goibibo.com and www.tripadvisor.com etc. It was further brought to the notice of this Court that a representative of the applicants had visited the hotel of the respondents and obtained invoices, which also used the word “Lords”, thereby willfully disobeying and violating the order passed by this Court. Thereupon the learned counsel for the applicants invited attention of this Court to the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents as also two compliance affidavits filed in these proceedings in pursuance of certain orders passed during the pendency of the present application. He submitted that the contents of the said affidavit showed that the respondents have compounded their acts of contumacious conduct by giving explanations, which show scant regard for the ad-interim order dated 10/11/2023 and also to the majesty of the Court. On this basis the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents deserve to be punished under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC and that in any case they ought not to be heard any further in the present proceedings till they show compliance of the order/orders passed by this Court. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449.

5. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the present case cannot be said to be a case of willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. As regards compliance with the direction of intimating the third party websites to take down the name of the hotel of the respondents, attention of this Court was specifically invited to documents filed along with affidavit placed on record to show that in November 2024 communications were sent to the said websites referring to the order passed by this Court, with a request to take down the details of the hotel of the respondents from such websites. On that score it was submitted that there was total compliance on behalf of the respondents and therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn.

6. As regards continued use of the word “Lords” in the name of the hotel of the respondents, it was submitted that since the prayer granted by this Court did not specify that the respondents stood temporarily res