$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 813/2022 & CM APPL. 33821/2022 TEXZONE INFORMATION SERVICES PVT LTD ... Petitioner Through: Ms. Shilpi Sinha, Mrs. Bindra Rana, Ms. Rima Majumdar, Mr. Aditya Vats Sharma, Advocates (M:9818202368)

versus ANKUR GOEL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sushil K. Tekriwal, Dr.

Mamta Tekriwal, Advs. (M:9811108123,email:tekadvo@g mail.com)

% Date of Decision: 20^th February, 2024 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

J U D G M E N T

MINI PUSHKARNA, J: (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 06th July, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in

FAO (OS)(COMM) No. 161/2022.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by way of the aforesaid order, settlement agreement between the parties had been recorded. It is submitted that as per the settlement between the parties, respondent no.1 was to place a standee at all the entry and exit points during the exhibition carried out by the respondent between 12th to 15th July, 2022 at Pragati Maidan. As per the said disclaimer, the following

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHARU CONT.CAS(C) 813/2022 Page 1 of 7 words had to be written:

“IHF EXPO, DELHI IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY AND IS HAVING NO ASSOCIATION WHATSOEVER WITH HGH, INDIA”

3. Thus, learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid settlement between the parties, which was duly recorded in the order dated 06^th July, 2022, the respondents did not put any display boards at any conspicuous place. He further relies upon an affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner’s representative, Ms. Neelam Negi, which has been attached as Annexure C-7 to the present petition, to contend that the petitioner’s representative had duly visited the exhibition carried out by the respondents at Pragati Maidan on two days, i.e., 12^th and 13^th July, 2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have been conducting exhibition in different parts of the country since the year

2016.

5. It is submitted that the respondents were not displaying the requisite boards with disclaimer on both the aforesaid dates. Accordingly, the present contempt petition has been filed for non-

compliance of the aforesaid order and settlement between the parties.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the various photographs that have been placed on record along with reply of the respondents. By referring to the photographs as filed before this Court, it is submitted that respondents had duly complied with the undertaking given by them and that they had displayed a board with the aforesaid disclaimer at various places, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHARU CONT.CAS(C) 813/2022 Page 2 of 7 including Entry and Exit of Pragati Maidan, place of registration and other places from where the said Board was visible in a conspicuous manner.

7. Learned counsel for respondents has further drawn the attention of this Court to various messages sent by the respondents to the petitioner herein, wherein the respondents had shared photographs of the display boards displayed by the respondents at their exhibition at Pragati Maidan. Thus, it is submitted that the order passed by this Court as well as the undertaking given by the respondents, have duly been complied with.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

9. At the outset, it would be fruitful to refer to the order dated 06^th July, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in FAO (OS)(COMM) No. 161/2022, for compliance of which, the present petition has been filed. The order dated 06^th July, 2022 reads as under:

“1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No.9185/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) in CS(COMM) No.402/2022 captioned Texzone Information Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Vision Communications