Jain Shikanji Pvt. Ltd. vs Satish Kumar Jain

$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Date of Decision: 02 July, 2026
+ CM(M)-IPD 36/2026
JAIN SHIKANJI PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. O.N. Sharma, Advocate.

versus

SATISH KUMAR JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Dwivedi and Ms. Amita
Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CM 155/2026 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM(M)-IPD 36/2026 & CM 154/2026
3. This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC challenging order dated
01.06.2026 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
East District Karkardooma Court Delhi in CS (COMM) No. 171/2021.
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr. Rahul Dwivedi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
Respondent.
6. To the extent necessary, the factual matrix is that Respondent filed the
aforementioned suit before the Commercial Court inter alia for permanent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
16:18:25
CM(M)-IPD 36/2026 Page 1 of 8

and mandatory injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, passing
off etc. for the trademark JAIN SHIKANJI/JAIN SHIKANJI PVT. LTD.,
which is pending disposal. Petitioner herein is the Defendant before the Trial
Court and is a company incorporated on 13.11.2019. By order dated
05.11.2022, learned Trial Court granted interim injunction restraining the
Petitioner from selling and/or offering for sale any goods and/or advertising
or promoting any product under the trademark JAIN SHIKANJI/JAIN
SHIKANJI RESTAURANT and/or any other trademark deceptively similar
to Respondent’s trademark JAIN SHIKANJI.
7. Petitioner filed an appeal before this Court against the said order
being FAO(COMM) 185/2022 and vide judgement dated 01.03.2023, the
appeal was dismissed and order of the Trial Court was upheld. On
12.11.2022, Respondent served a notice on the Petitioner alleging violation
of the injunction order, to which reply was sent by the Petitioner on
24.11.2022 denying the allegations and specifically stating that it had
stopped all its trade and business activity under the trademark JAIN
SHIKANJI. On 24.11.2022 Respondent filed an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A CPC owing to willful disobedience of the injunction order
dated 05.11.2022 and reply was filed by the Petitioner on 16.01.2023.
8. By order dated 03.06.2023, Trial Court allowed the contempt
application and held that Sh. Anubhav Jain, Director of the Petitioner
company, had tried to circumvent and flout the orders of the Court in a
willful and crafted manner, which amounted to willful disobedience of the
order. Considering the totality of circumstances and gravity of the
disobedience and the fact that the order was continuing to be violated, Trial
Court directed that all properties of the Petitioner or in the name of Mr.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
16:18:25
CM(M)-IPD 36/2026 Page 2 of 8

Anubhav Jain from where business of ‘Jain Shikanji/Jain Asli Shikanji/Jain
Shikanji Restaurant’ was being run, be attached for a period of six months,
whereafter if the disobedience continues, further action will be decided by
the Court. Trial Court was also of the view that mere attachment would not
suffice and directed that Mr. Anubhav Jain will be confined to civil
imprisonment for 08 weeks and consequently, he shall surrender before the
Court within 15 days of the passing of the order to receive the sentence,
failing which coercive process shall be issued against him.
9. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal being
FAO(COMM) No.130/2023 before this Court and vide order dated
12.06.2023, the direction of the Trial Court to surrender was stayed.
However, by final judgment dated 17.09.2025, the appeal was dismissed by
the Division Bench and the stay was vacated. Mr. Anubhav Jain was
directed to surrender before the Trial Court by 19.09.2025 and Trial Court
was directed to give effect to its order dated 03.06.2023. SLP bearing
No.28936/2025 filed by the Petitioner against this judgement was dismissed
as withdrawn on 15.10.2025 and subsequently, Review Petition bearing
No.633/2025 filed before the Division Bench of this Court was also
dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.2025, whereupon Petitioner filed an
application under Section 151 CPC before the Trial Court and an affidavit
tendering unconditional apology with an undertaking to comply with the
order dated 05.11.2022 in letter and spirit, which was dismissed by the Trial
Court vide impugned order dated 01.06.2026. Trial Court has by the
impugned order declined to accept the unconditional apology noting the
conduct of Mr. Anubhav Jain, who refused to appear in Court despite
directions to do so as also the fact that despite being held guilty of violating
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
16:18:25
CM(M)-IPD 36/2026 Page 3 of 8

Court orders and direction of this Court to surrender, he had absconded and
was making mockery of law. Fresh warrants of arrest have been issued
against him in addition to warrants of attachment of the properties
mentioned therein and exemplary cost of Rs.5 lacs has been imposed to be
paid to the Respondent as compensation for delaying the case.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner takes a position that Mr. Anubhav
Jain had every intent to appear before the Trial Court and also comply with
the Court orders and directions and the non-appearance was unintentional
and bona fide. On one hand, it is contended that despite request, Trial Court
did not permit Mr. Anubhav Jain to appear through video conferencing,
which cannot be denied as that is now the normal norm and also permitted
as per laid down rules and guidelines in all Courts and on the other hand, it
is submitted that the non-appearance was owing to the fact that Mr.
Anubhav Jain was under stress. Counsel urges that the impugned order
directing issuance of warrants of arrest and attachment of properties as also
imposing exemplary cost be set aside and direction be issued to the Trial
Court to accept the unconditional apology tendered on affidavit.
11. Learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposes the petition
and submits that the impugned order is justified and legally valid, looking at
the conduct of Mr. Anubhav Jain and the judicial orders passed by this Court
and the Trial Court holding him guilty of willful disobedience of the
injunction order as also orders directing him to surrender, which have been
upheld by the Supreme Court. Counsel also draws the attention of the Court
to paragraph 4 of the apology affidavit in which Mr. Anubhav Jain has
stated that he did not comply with the order of this Court under a bona fide
impression that he will get the order set aside from the higher Court as he
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
16:18:25
CM(M)-IPD 36/2026 Page 4 of 8

has a good case on merits as also the fact that there is nothing in the affidavit
which even remotely explains why he chose not to appear personally in
Court when directed by the Trial Court coupled with the direction of this
Court to surrender by a fixed date.
12. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their
submissions.

13. Factual narrative and chronology of events of the case, as noted
above, shows that Mr. Anubhav Jain violated and willfully disobeyed the
interim injunction order dated 05.11.2022 granted by the Trial Court, which
was upheld by this Court in FAO(COMM) 185/2022 vide judgement dated
01.03.2023. Contempt application filed by the Respondent was allowed vide
detailed order dated 03.06.2023, wherein the Trial Court made serious
observations on the conduct of Mr. Anubhav Jain, who is the Director of the
Petitioner company. It was observed that Mr. Anubhav Jain tried to
circumvent and flout the orders of the Court and was not deserving of
any concession or acceptance of unconditional apology and that the
disobedience continued. Consequently, Trial Court directed the properties
mentioned therein to be attached for a period of six months whereafter
if the disobedience continued, further decision will be taken. Holding
that mere attachment will not suffice, Court directed that Mr. Anubhav Jain
shall be confined to civil imprisonment for 08 weeks and will surrender
within 15 days from the date of the order, failing which coercive action will
be taken.
14. Petitioner challenged the order before this Court in FAO(COMM)
130/2023 and albeit initially the direction to surrender was stayed, vide
judgment dated 17.09.2025, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
16:18:25
CM(M)-IPD 36/2026 Page 5 of 8

judgment reflects serious observations against Mr. Anubhav Jain by the
Division Bench including the fact that even on the said date, the interim
injunction was being violated. Division Bench observed that Petitioner
company and Mr. Anubhav Jain continued to violate the orders of the Trial
Court as also undertakings given to this Court with impunity and without
any regret and the violation was willful as also that there was a repeated
attempt to mislead the Court by filing false affidavits and undertakings
without any intent to abide by them. With these observations in the
backdrop, the interim order was vacated and Mr. Anubhav Jain was directed
to surrender before the Trial Court by 19.09.2025 and Trial Court was
directed to give effect to the punishment awarded vide order dated
03.06.2023. It was also observed by the Division Bench that instead of
purging the contempt, the same was compounded by committing further
contempt during the pendency of the appeal. This order was challenged by
the Petitioner before the Supreme Court but the SLP was dismissed as
withdrawn on 15.12.2025.
15. The impugned order of the Trial Court indicates that Mr. Anubhav
Jain did not surrender before the Trial Court and the Non-Bailable Warrants
initially issued against him came back unexecuted with a report that he was
not traceable. Mr. Anubhav Jain filed an application for accepting
unconditional apology on an affidavit but neither surrendered nor appeared
physically before the Court. As the order reflects, Court specifically
instructed his counsel to ensure that he appears personally and even passed
over the matter, but Mr. Anubhav Jain did not appear. Trial Court notes that
Mr. Anubhav Jain was convicted under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and
despite directions to surrender by the Trial Court affirmed by the Division
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
16:18:25
CM(M)-IPD 36/2026 Page 6 of 8

Bench of this Court, he absconded and is making mockery of law and
showing complete defiance and challenging the authority of law with an
attitude “ Do Whatever You Want To Do ” . It is in this background that the
Trial Court issued fresh warrants of arrest and attachment of properties with
exemplary cost of Rs.5 lacs vide the impugned order.
16. Having perused the impugned order as also the earlier orders of the
Trial Court and more importantly, the judgment of the Division Bench dated
17.09.2025, upheld by the Supreme Court, I am of the view that there is no
legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order. The serious observations of
the Division Bench of this Court as also the Trial Court leave no doubt that
Mr. Anubhav Jain has no regards for the orders of the Courts and flouts
them willfully, deliberately and knowingly, to suit his convenience. Despite
a categorical direction of Division Bench of this Court to surrender, Mr.
Anubhav Jain only tendered an affidavit of unconditional apology. Trial
Court passed repeated directions to him through his counsel to appear but he
failed to do so. Counsel for Mr. Anubhav Jain contends that the non-
appearance was due to stress. As rightly held by the Trial Court, this could
hardly be accepted as a reason for non-appearance in light of judicial orders
asking him to surrender and appear. Insofar as the request for appearance
through video conferencing is concerned, I may only note that this
contradictory to the stand that Mr. Anubhav Jain did not appear due to stress
and secondly, while it may be true that appearance through video
conferencing is permissible but in the facts of this case where High Court
has directed him to surrender and Trial Court asked him to appear physically
to enforce the punishment order as also directions of the Division Bench, it
was not open to Mr. Anubhav Jain to insist that he would appear only
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
16:18:25
CM(M)-IPD 36/2026 Page 7 of 8

through video conferencing and remain defiant, despite the Trial Court
passing over the matter for his appearance.
17. At this stage, counsel for the Petitioner strenuously urges that at least
the exemplary cost be reduced and Petitioner shall pay the reduced cost
within two weeks from today. Having given my thoughtful consideration,
this prayer of the Petitioner is accepted and the exemplary cost is reduced to
Rs.3 lacs, which shall be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent within two
weeks from today, as undertaken.
18. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed and the
impugned order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is
upheld with the modification to the extent of reduction in the exemplary
cost.
19. Pending application is accordingly disposed of.


JYOTI SINGH, J
JULY 2, 2026
S.Sharma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:03.07.2026
16:18:25
CM(M)-IPD 36/2026 Page 8 of 8