Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, Bombay High Court
Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC Aimed At Compliance, Not Punishment: Bombay High Court Lays Down Seven-Point Test
|The Bench noted that attachment of the violator's property or sending the violator to civil prison is not an end in itself and found KVIC's "Khadi" injunction violated, but declined attachment or imprisonment since compliance was achieved.
The Bombay High Court has laid down a comprehensive seven-point summary of principles governing applications under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC, holding that the provision is aimed at securing compliance with interim orders and not at inflicting punishment, and that attachment of property or civil imprisonment are coercive measures of last resort rather than ends in themselves.
The Court held that once compliance with an injunction restraining Mumbai Khadi & Village Industries Association (MKVIA) from using the "Khadi" mark had been achieved, no purpose would be served by attaching its property or committing its trustees to civil prison, even though a violation of the injunction stood established. The Bench clarified that the standard of proof for finding a violation under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is the civil standard of preponderance of probability, albeit of a high degree given the stigma involved, and is distinct from the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt applicable to contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, rejecting MKVIA's contention that the two jurisdictions must be treated as identical in every respect.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed, “…the jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC is aimed at securing compliance i.e. it is remedial rather than intended to be a sanction of attachment or property or civil imprisonment as an end in itself. Both these measures are meant to be coercive measures to secure compliance and once compliance is achieved within the stipulated parameters, the continued application of these measures is untenable”.
“Attachment of the violator’s property or sending the violator to civil prison is not an end in itself. If remedial measures can be adopted to secure compliance, the powers under Section 151 of the CPC may be brought to bear to achieve the same without having to attach property and inflict civil imprisonment to coerce compliance with the interim order”, the Bench further directed.
Advocate Diva Arora appeared for the plaintiff-petitioner (KVIC) and Advocate Rahul Dubey appeared for the respondent.
The Court's seven-point summary of principles governing Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC are:
- The true test: Whether an interim order exists; whether it contains a discernible obligation; whether that obligation was violated; and only if so, whether attachment of property or civil imprisonment should follow to secure compliance.
- Standard of proof: The civil standard of preponderance of probability applies, not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, though it must be of a high degree given the stigma attached to violating a court order.
- Objective of the provision: Order XXXIX Rule 2A exists to ensure compliance with interim orders, similar in purpose to Order XXI Rule 32 CPC's enforcement of permanent injunctions.
- Attachment/imprisonment not an end in itself: Where remedial measures under Section 151 CPC can secure compliance, courts need not resort to attachment or imprisonment.
- Caution where sanctions are imposed: If attachment or imprisonment is found necessary, courts must ensure there is no ambiguity about the existence or violation of the obligation, and that such measures are genuinely necessary to secure compliance, never as punishment in themselves.
- Judgments must be read contextually: Precedents on the point must be interpreted in light of their specific facts, not treated as if they were statutory text.
- Guarding against over-criminalisation: Since the interim order itself was granted on a civil/equitable standard, importing a criminal standard of proof at the enforcement stage,without regard to the coercive (not punitive) purpose of the remedy, would defeat the very object for which the interim order was passed.
As per the facts, Khadi & Village Industries Commission (KVIC), a statutory body established under the Khadi & Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 holding registered rights over the "Khadi" mark and Charkha logo, had earlier obtained an injunction dated December 14, 2022 restraining MKVIA from using the "Khadi" mark or a deceptively similar variant, including as part of its trade name, in connection with manufacture, sale, or advertising of goods and services.
The injunction followed a history of litigation, including an earlier suit in which MKVIA had given an undertaking not to sell products described as "Khadi" without KVIC certification, an undertaking the Court found had been violated through continued sale of garments labelled "Khadi" despite a token disclaimer. Within five months of the injunction, MKVIA's premises hosted "Khadi Mahotsav 2.0," a three-day trade fair promoted as jointly organised by MKVIA and Atharva School, mirroring an identical event held months before the injunction. KVIC also alleged separate acts of contempt: execution of a registered Agreement for Sale of MKVIA's property using its full name, and continued listing of MKVIA's name on third-party business directories.
The Court rejected MKVIA's claim of ignorance of the Mahotsav, finding it implausible that a three-day event held on its own premises, bearing the "Khadi" name and Charkha symbol and expressly naming MKVIA as joint organiser, could have occurred without its knowledge.
On the Agreement for Sale and digital listings, the Court declined to invoke contempt jurisdiction, holding these bore no nexus to the specific conduct restrained by the injunction (sale, promotion, and advertising of "Khadi" products).
The Court directed MKVIA's Board of Trustees not to host any Khadi-related event on its premises or elsewhere, held that no attachment of property or civil imprisonment was warranted given compliance had been achieved, but directed MKVIA to pay costs of ₹2,50,000 to KVIC within four weeks under Section 151 CPC, and warned the trustees against future violations. The trustees were further directed to file an affidavit with full facts and audited financial details of the Mahotsav's conduct, along with details of institutional measures taken to prevent recurrence and efforts to delist MKVIA from third-party platforms, within four weeks.
The Contempt Petition was dismissed insofar as it related to the Agreement for Sale and the digital listings.
Cause Title: Khadi & Village Industries Commission v. Shri Jaishukh N. Bhuta & Ors., Interim Application No. 5867 of 2025 In Commercial Ip Suit No. 580 OF 2022
Appearances:
Plaintiff: Diva Arora, Janhvi Chadha, Devyani Nath, Aishwarya Ambardekar and Saumya Pandey, instructed by Bimal Rajsekhar, Advocates.
Defendant: Rashmin Khandekar, Anand Mohan, Atmaram Patade, Rahul Dubey and Shraddha Patil, instructed by Atmaram Patade, Advocates.