Shri Naresh D Bhuta vs Khadi Village Industries Commission

CNR No : HCBM020307972026

17 COMAP L 30796-26.doc
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 30796 OF 2026
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5867 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 31282 OF 2026
Shri Naresh D Bhuta .. Appellant
Versus
Khadi Village Industries Commission .. Respondent
…
Mr. Atmaram Patade a/w Mr. Rahul R. Dubey, Ms. Shradha Patil,
Ms. Ayesha Ahmed, Ms. Bhakti i/b Mr. Atmaram Patade for the
Appellant.
Ms. Shwetasree Majumdar a/w Ms. Janhvi Chadha, Devyani Nath,
Saymya Pandey i/b Janhvi Chadha for Respondent.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
st
DATED : 21 OCTOBER, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE J):-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned
counsel for the Respondent.
2. The present Appeal is filed being aggrieved by a part of the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the
Interim Application.
The ultimate paragraph of the impugned order, while disposing
of the Interim Application filed by Khadi & Village Industries
Commission, directed the Board of Trustees of Mumbai Khadi &
Ashish
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 11:35:37

17 COMAP L 30796-26.doc
2/4
Village Industries Association (“MKVIA”), not to host any event
relating to “Khadi” or promoting it in any other manner, the aforesaid
order being passed upon an Interim Application filed under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A, alleging willful circumvention of an injunction
granted on 14/12/2022 while disposing of Interim Application (L) No.
14308 of 2022.
Amongst various directions issued, the learned Single Judge
also directed thus:-
“C] In the peculiar facts of the case, in my view, in exercise of
powers under Section 151 of the CPC, for the evident violation of
the interim order found in the jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule
2A, this would be a fit case to direct that MKVIA pay costs for
litigation in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000 to KVIC to factor in the costs
expended in pursuit of enforcing against the breach of the interim
order within four weeks from today.”
3. The Appeal is filed by one of the Trustee on the ground that it
was not permissible for the learned Judge to invoke Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, in the wake of the existence of a specific
power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and for appreciating the said
contention, we must refer to the said provision:-
“2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction –
(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or
other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the
terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the
Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to
which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property
of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached,
and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison
for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the
Court directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force
for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience
or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of
the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks
fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party
Ashish
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 11:35:37

17 COMAP L 30796-26.doc
3/4
entitled thereto.”

4. Undisputedly, it is open for a Court to deal with the
disobedience or breach of injunction granted or an order made under
Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order XXXIX, and in such a contingency, the
Court may order the property of the person guilty of such
disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such
person to be detained in a civil prison for a term not exceeding three
months, unless, in the meantime, the Court directs his release.
Admittedly, the power is given to the Court to deal with the
disobedience or breach of injunction, and it can be in one of the
modes that is prescribed in Rule 2A.
However, though the learned Single Judge recorded that there
was a breach of injunction and, for this purpose, the application was
taken out, and while allowing the application filed by Village and
Khadi Industries Board, in relation to its trademark “Khadi” along
with the “Charkha”, it restrained MKVIA to host any event or
promote “Khadi”, regardless of whether such person is certified or
approved by KVIC. It also directed MKVIA not to indulge in
violation of the injunction order, and it is indicated that if it is done,
then the property of the violator shall be liable for attachment, or the
he may even be confined to civil imprisonment, by taking into
consideration the alleged violation.
However, at present, the learned Judge found it deemed
appropriate to note that, in the wake of the evident violation of the
interim order, it would be sufficient to direct payment of the costs of
litigation, since the application was required to be filed by KVIC,
Ashish
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 11:35:37

17 COMAP L 30796-26.doc
4/4
inviting the attention of the Court to the violation, and therefore, the
cost of litigation in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was directed to be paid
to KVIC in its pursuit, for enforcing the breach of interim orders.
5. We do not find any illegality in the said order, considering the
facts of the case, as it is indicated by the learned Single Judge that, in
case of any further infringement or violation, the procedure under
Rule 2A shall be followed.
Since we are informed that the cost is already paid, the Appeal
is disposed of along with pending Interim Applications.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Ashish
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 11:35:37
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)