Violation of Injunction -- Nature of Order XXXIX Rule 2A -- Provision aimed at securing compliance and not at inflicting punishment
(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39 R.2A -- Violation of Injunction -- Nature of Order XXXIX Rule 2A -- Jurisdiction under this provision is remedial and intended to secure compliance with an interim order. Attachment of property and civil imprisonment are coercive measures to secure compliance and not sanctions or ends in themselves. (ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39 R.2A -- Violation of Injunction -- Standard of Proof -- Finding of violation requires proof on preponderance of probability, of a high degree given the stigma involved, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt applicable to contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Importing the criminal standard at the enforcement stage would defeat the coercive purpose of the interim order. (iii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39 R.2A -- Violation of Injunction -- Compliance Already Achieved -- Continued application of attachment or civil imprisonment is untenable once compliance with the interim order is achieved. Power under Section 151 CPC may be invoked to secure remedial compliance without resorting to attachment or imprisonment. (iv) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39 R.2A -- Violation of Injunction -- Acts Unconnected with Restrained Conduct -- Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked for acts that bear no nexus to the specific conduct restrained by the injunction. Execution of an agreement using the restrained party's name and its continued listing on third-party directories do not attract contempt where the injunction is confined to sale, promotion and advertising of the impugned mark.
LOGIN TO READCaseLawToday.com is powered by M/s Law Herald Infotech
