Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Nilesh Dhanukar – Appellant
Versus
Siemens Industry Software Inc – Respondent
FAO (COMM) 218/2026 | CM APPL. 49736/2026 | CM APPL. 49733/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Rajeshwari Hariharan, Mr. V.K. Puri, Ms. Anshima Puri, Ms. Shreya Gagneja
For the Respondents: Ms. Aarshia Behl, Ms. Shruti Baid, Ms. Aashi Sharma, Mr. Bhavya Manda
Disobedience of an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is not erased by the subsequent passing of a final decree. Obstruction of a Court-appointed Local Commissioner constitutes willful disobedience and a direct affront to the judicial system, justifying coercive measures like civil imprisonment.
Headnote:(A) Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC - Effect of Final Decree - Disobedience of an interim injunction does not get nullified or erased by the subsequent passing of a final decree in the suit. (Para 38, 39)
(B) Local Commissioner - Status and Obstruction - A Local Commissioner is an extended arm and agent of the Court; obstructing the Commissioner from executing a court order amounts to obstruction of justice and willful disobedience. (Para 35, 36)
(C) Civil Contempt - Apology - An apology must be sincere and genuine to be accepted; conduct showing a lack of remorse or attempts to browbeat the court's agent justifies the rejection of an apology. (Para 33, 34, 41)
(D) Personal Liability - Order XXXIX Rule 2A - Liability for civil contempt is personal; if the individual is personally involved in the obstruction, they cannot claim vicarious liability protection. (Para 42)
Issues: Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding the appellant guilty of civil contempt under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and sentencing him to civil prison despite the suit having been finally decreed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 49736/2026(condonation)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The application is disposed of.
FAO (COMM) 218/2026 & CM APPL. 49733/2026(Stay)
3. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.07.2026 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-02), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (the ‘Trial Court’, hereinafter) in Contempt Petition No.6/2026. The underlying commercial suit, CS (COMM) No.470/2023, was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff, alleging corporate infringement concerning their proprietary software known as NX. On 10.08.2023, the Trial Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from utilizing the said software.
4. Pursuant to an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the Trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises of the appellant to verify compliance with the injunction. During the inspection, conducted on 17th and 18th August, 2023, the Local Commissioner noted the presence of approximately 25 to 35 computer systems, some of which were found to be running the NX software. The report of the Local Commissioner stated that the employees of the appellant surrounded the inspection team, obstructed judicial process, and attempted to clandestinely transfer eight CPUs and three hard disks to adjoining premises to conceal evidence of infringement. The Local Commissioner also stated that he was physically obstructed from carrying out the Commission.
5. Subsequently, the respondents initiated the contempt petition and a general disobedience of the interim order, obstruction of the Local Commissioner, and unauthorised tampering with electronic hardware. By way of the impugned order dated 18.05.2026, the Trial Court held that the appellant is guilty of civil contempt, observing that the conduct of the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings, specifically the assertion of adversarial defenses in attempt to blame the legal counsel, demonstrated a lack of genuine remorse, and consequently, the apology tendered by the appellant at that stage was rejected and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo detention in a civil prison for a period of two months.
6. Ms. Rajeshwari Hariharan, learned senior counsel for the appellant stated that the primary ground of challenge in this appeal is that once the suit is decreed, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC does not survive. Such an application, by its very nature and design, is a proceeding ancillary and subordinate to the suit in which it is filed, and its whole object is to enforce compliance with interlocutory injunctions granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC during the pendency of the suit. It has no independent existence, cause of action, or jurisdictional foundation apart from the suit itself. As such, the continued maintainability of such an application is inseparably linked to and coextensive with the pendency of the suit. Once the suit stands finally decreed, the interlocutory injunction on which the contempt application was founded ceases to have any existence. In this case, the suit, having culminated in a decree, is no longer pending, and the interim injunction that the application sought to enforce no longer survives as a distinct free-standing order capable of separately being enforced or punished for breach. What survives now is only the decree itself, which is enforceable exclusively through the machinery prescribed for execution of decrees under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC.
7. She stated that in the present case, the suit was finally decreed on 19.02.2026, but the Trial Court proceeded to record a finding of guilt on 18.05.2026 and to impose sentence on 25.07.2026, both dates falling well after the decree. By that stage, the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC had already become infructuous and had ceased to survive in la
