Punitive Order Under Order XXXIX Rule 2A Of CPC Can’t Be Passed On Mere Suspicion Of Disobedience: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court was considering an application filed by the plaintiffs invoking Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of CPC, alleging a breach by the defendant of an ad-interim order.

The Bombay High Court asked the defendant to pay Rs 5 lakh to the plaintiffs for not adhering to the ad-interim directions and held that mere suspicion or breach of an injunction order cannot become the basis for passing punitive order under Order XXXIX Rule 2 A of the CPC. The Court would have to specifically analyze the extent of disobedience based on the material available on record.
The High Court was considering an application filed by the plaintiffs invoking Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of CPC, alleging a breach by the defendant of the ad-interim order passed by the Court while considering an Interim Application.
The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale asserted, “Even while passing such punitive order, the Court cannot be oblivious of the principle of proportionality. The more intense the breach of the injunction order, the more severe ought to be the punitive order under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the CPC.The nature of disobedience or breach of an order of injunction has to be taken into consideration by the Court even if a finding is rendered that such disobedience or breach has been proved.”
Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar represented the Plaintiffs while Advocate Shanay Shah represented the Defendant.
Factual Background
The Plaintiffs in this case are in the business of healthcare technology and specialized healthcare revenue cycle management (RCM). They approached the High Court with a grievance that the defendant, being their ex-senior employee, having access to sensitive confidential and proprietary information, unauthorizedly downloaded and retained such information to disseminate the same to third parties. Since the plaintiffs apprehended that the defendant would part with such sensitive information, which included information regarding patients, they moved the proceedings and pressed for ad-interim reliefs without notice. The Single Bench granted the ex-parte ad-interim reliefs.
The Forensic Expert, appointed by the Court, took possession of the devices of the defendant and started the process of data mirroring. It came to light that two external devices of the defendant had left traces and that the said two devices had not been handed over by the defendant. Claiming that the defendant brazenly violated the order of the Court, demonstrating contumacious conduct on his part the plaintiffs filed the application alleging breach by the defendant of the ad-interim order.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained that Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the CPC was inserted by way of amendment of the CPC in 1977 and it provides that when the Court finds such disobedience or breach of injunction order made under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the CPC, an order can be passed attaching the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach and such person can also be detained in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months.
It was further noticed that the defendant came forward to hand over the aforesaid two electronic devices, only after the Forensic Expert sent a communication to the Court Receiver about the said two electronic devices having been held back by the defendant. “Thus, it was only when the breach was brought to the notice of this Court that the defendant came forward to hand over the two electronic devices to the Court Receiver. The explanation given in the affidavit in reply and the affidavit of disclosure that this was due to ‘unintentional oversight’, cannot be accepted as it lacks sincerity”, it added.
The Court further held, “It was only after the final forensic report dated 25.09.2024 was submitted by the expert and relied upon by the plaintiffs in the present application, that the defendant tried to explain as to why he had deleted such information and used anti forensic software in respect of the said two electronic device. This Court finds that such conduct on the part of the defendant shows that he has scant regard for the majesty of this Court and the casual manner in which he has treated the orders passed by this Court even during the pendency of the present application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the CPC. The said property was custodia legis and yet the defendant defiantly and brazenly dealt with the same in utter violation of the order of this Court.” Reference was also made to the judgments in Food Corporation of India Vs. Sukh Deo Prasad, (2009) and Cross Fit LLC Vs. Renjith Kunnumal and another (2023).
In view of such aspects, the Bench held that the apology tendered by the defendant in the affidavit of disclosure cannot be said to be sincere and demonstrating repentance on the part of the defendant for his conduct. Considering that the plaintiffs were repeatedly required to approach the Court due to the conduct of the defendant in holding back the said two electronic devices and thereafter deleting information without intimation to the Court Receiver or the Forensic Expert, the Bench ordered the defendant to pay Rs 5 lakh to the plaintiff. It was also clarified that failure to do the same would lead to him being detained in civil prison for 4 weeks.
The Bench disposed of the application by further asking the defendant to file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not disseminate the confidential and proprietary information of the plaintiffs to any third party until further orders in the Interim Application.
Cause Title: Trubridge Healthcare Private Limited and another v. xyz (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:1309)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar, Advocates Rashmin Khandekar, S. Sheth, Shilpa Sengar, Harsh Khanchandani
Respondent: Advocates Shanay Shah, Mustafa Bohra, Nikhilesh Koundinya Shruti Mehta