Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10763
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kartar Industries – Respondent
CS(COMM) 971/2025 | I.A. 26291/2025 | I.A. 22461/2025 | I.A. 22462/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kunal Khanna, Madhav Anand, Krtin Bhasin, Yashveer Singh, Udit Sharma, Kaulik Mitra, Param Goel, Priyanshi Gupta
For the Respondents: Arun Batta, Vipin Gogia, Karanvir Gogia, Varnika Gupta
A court-appointed Local Commissioner is an officer of the court; obstructing them or destroying evidence constitutes contempt. In trademark suits without led evidence, the court may award notional damages based on a fair assessment of circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Interference with Local Commissioner - Manhandling, abusing and threatening a court-appointed officer and destroying infringing goods in the presence of the officer constitutes contempt that cannot be absolved by a mere apology. (Para 7)
(B) Trade Mark Infringement - Damages - Notional Damages - In cases where formal evidence is not led, the court may grant notional damages on a reasonable and fair basis via broad assessment of evidence on record. (Para 15, 16)
Issues: Whether the defendant committed contempt by obstructing the Local Commissioner and whether notional damages are applicable in the absence of detailed evidence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of contempt regarding the obstruction of a local commissioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. punishment for contempt due to interference with court officers. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. award of notional damages in the absence of led evidence. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. final disposal of the suit and pending applications. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
TEJAS KARIA, J. (ORAL)
I.A. 26291/2025 (U/O XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC)
1. This is an Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for for initiation of contempt proceedings against the Defendant / Contemnors for wilful disobedience of the Order dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court.
2. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that during the search of the premises of the Defendant, large number of infringing goods were found in form of packaging material and spare parts which were lying in gunny bags. However, Contemnor Nos. 1 and 2 manhandled and abused the learned Local Commissioner and the Plaintiffs’ Counsel and threatened them by holding them by their shoulders and displayed aggressive behaviour. The employees of Contemnor No.1 acting upon the instruction of Contemnor No. 1 threw the counterfeit material into a metal burner used at the premises of the Defendant and put fire in the presence of the learned Local Commissioner.
3. Vide Order dated 17.10.2025, notice was issued in the present Application, and the learned Counsel for the Defendant / Contemnors submitted that the Defendant / Contemnors wish to settle the matter with the Plaintiffs and they may be referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, however, in view of the conduct of the Defendant / Contemnors they were directed to remain personally present on the next date of hearing.
4. Vide Order dated 27.11.2025, the learned Counsel for the Defendant / Contemnors, submitted that the report of the learned Local Commissioner is not correct and they would like to file objection to the report of the learned Local Commissioner. However, the objection to the report of the learned Local Commissioner was withdrawn during the hearing and the learned Counsel for the Defendant / Contemnors submitted that the Defendant / Contemnors are ready and willing to tender an unconditional apology for committing contempt and making the aforesaid submissions.
5. The Defendant / Contemnors have tendered an unconditional apology and sought to settle the matter in view of the unconditional apology tendered.
6. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the conduct of the Defendant / Contemnors during the execution of the Commission, which included abusing, manhandling and threatening the learned Local Commissioner and the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs who accompanied the learned Local Commissioner and setting fire to the infringing goods warrants a hefty penalty.
7. A Local Commissioner appointed by a Court is an officer of the Court and the Defendants cannot go scot-free after threatening an officer of the Court and interfering with the execution of the Commission. The Defendant / Contemnors, present in person, have sought an unconditional apology and submitted that they would not carry on the infringing activities, which is a mitigating circumstance while deciding the quantum of punishment for the Defendant / Contemnor. However, the contempt and conduct of the Defendant / Contemnors is of such a nature, which cannot absolve by them giving mere apology.
8. In view of the conduct of the Defendant / Contemnors during the conduct of the Commission and for committing contempt of Court the Defendant shall donate ₹2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) to HelpAge India having address at C-14, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi – 110016, within a period of eight weeks and inform the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff.
9. The present Application is disposed of with the a
