Power Exercised Under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC Is Punitive In Nature: Bombay High Court Asks Resort To Pay Rs 5 Lakh For Continuing To Use Hotel’s Name Despite Court’s Order

The Application before the High Court was filed at the instance of Lords Inn Hotels and Developers under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking appropriate punitive orders against the respondents for having willfully disobeyed and violated the orders passed by the High Court. The High Court had passed a temporary order and injunction restraining the respondents from dishonestly using the trademark of the applicant and also from infringing said trademark by using the same in their trade name or part of the trade name.

The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale asserted, “This Court finds that the aforesaid conduct of the respondents in continuing to use the name “Hotel Lords” and thereafter adding the word “Dehradun” and sketch of a “Horsehead” to the same and thereupon taking the aforesaid stand in the affidavits filed before this Court amounts to contumacious conduct and willful disobedience and violation of the orders passed by this Court.”

Expounding on the law relating to Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Bench said, “In this regard the position of law is clearly laid down in the case of Food Corporation Of India vs Sukh Prasad on 24 March, 2009, 2009 (5) SCC 665, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the power exercised by the Court under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC is punitive in nature, akin to power to punish civil contempt exercised by the Court under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

Advocate Rashmin Khandekar represented the Applicant while Advocate Sanjeev Sahay represented the Defendants.

Arguments

It was the case of the applicant that it being the registered proprietor of the trademark “Lords”, is entitled to such a proprietary right against any party that uses an identical, similar or deceptively similar mark. It was submitted that despite service of the said ad-interim order it was found that the respondents continued to use the name “Lords” associated with their hotel. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the name of the hotel of the respondents continued to be featured on third-party websites.

The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the prayer granted by this Court did not specify that the respondents stood temporarily restrained from using the word “Lords” in the name of their hotel. It was their case that steps were taken by the respondents to bring about changes in the name of their hotel to show compliance with the order passed by the Court.

Reasoning

The Bench found that there were documents placed on record along with the reply affidavit and two compliance affidavits on behalf of the respondents showing that they took steps to write to third-party websites to take down details of their hotel from their website, after specifically referring to the order of the Court. But these communications were sent after one year of the ad interim order and that too after the applicant repeatedly raised the said issue of non-compliance by the respondents. Moreover, the respondents continued to use the name of their Hotel as “Hotel Lords” despite service of the ad-interim order upon them.

The Bench explained that a registered trademark is infringed when the mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the same is used in relation to goods or services of the party against whom such an allegation is made. The mark being used by the respondents, at the time when the ad-interim order was passed was admittedly “Hotel Lords”. The use of such mark/name by the respondents was noticed and thereupon, this Court granted the said ad-interim relief in favour of the applicants. It was further noticed that there was hardly any remorse on the part of the respondents while willfully disobeying the order of the Court.

The Bench further said, “This Court has already found hereinabove that the respondents have willfully, deliberately and with impunity violated the orders of this Court by continuing to use the name “Hotel Lords” and thereafter the name “Hotel Lords” in conjunction with word “Dehradun” and a sketch of “Horsehead”, showing scant regard to the majesty of this Court and to the Rule of Law. For such contumacious conduct the respondents deserve to be punished.”

On a perusal of the photograph of the hotel of the respondents placed on record, the Bench noticed that the said hotel of the respondents located in Dehradun still carries the name “Hotel Lords” prominently with the sketch of Horsehead added to it during the pendency of the present proceedings.

Holding the respondents guilty and liable for a punitive order under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, the Bench directed them to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakh to the applicants within 6 weeks to purge the contempt. The Bench thus disposed of the application by further directing that if the respondents fail to pay the aforesaid amount to the applicants within the stipulated period, the respondents shall be detained in civil prison for 6 weeks.

Cause Title: Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. S. P. Builders and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:3342)

Appearance:

Applicants: Advocates Rashmin Khandekar, Darpan Bhatia, Rishabh Dhanuka, Anisha Didwania, Mahima Shah, Rishabh Dhanuka

Defendants: Advocare Sanjeev Sahay (VC), Archit Rajput, Pravin Singh

Click here to read/download Order