Bombay HC Upholds ₹2.5 Lakh Costs Against Khadi Association Over Injunction Breach

In brief

The question

Whether the Single Judge could direct payment of litigation costs under Section 151 CPC after finding a breach of an injunction, despite the specific remedies provided by Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

The court held

The Court rejected the challenge to the costs direction, finding no illegality warranting appellate interference.

It also directed

The appeal and pending interim applications were disposed of; the Court noted that the ₹2,50,000 costs had already been paid.

01Facts

The Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) had obtained an interim order concerning use and promotion of “Khadi” and the “Charkha”.

p. 1

In proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the Single Judge found a breach of the injunction and, among other directions, ordered the Board of Trustees of the Mumbai Khadi & Village Industries Association (MKVIA) to pay KVIC ₹2,50,000 towards litigation costs under Section 151 CPC.

pp. 1–2

Naresh D. Bhuta, a trustee, appealed against the costs direction, arguing that the specific remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A precluded resort to Section 151 CPC.

p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the Single Judge could direct payment of litigation costs under Section 151 CPC after finding a breach of an injunction, despite the specific remedies provided by Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

pp. 2–3

ii.Whether the costs direction warranted appellate interference.

pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC empowers a court to address disobedience or breach of an injunction granted under Rules 1 or 2, including by attachment of the property of the person in breach or detention in civil prison for up to three months; where attachment continues for one year and the breach persists, the attached property may be sold and compensation awarded from the proceeds.

pp. 2–3

The appellant relied on Section 151 CPC, which preserves the court’s inherent powers, to contend that the specific procedure in Rule 2A governed the matter.

p. 2

The judgment does not set out a broader test governing the interaction between Section 151 and Rule 2A.

pp. 2–3

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court noted that Rule 2A provides specified modes for dealing with disobedience or breach of an injunction.

p. 3

However, it found no illegality in the Single Judge’s direction requiring payment of litigation costs, made in view of the breach and the expense KVIC incurred in bringing it to the Court’s attention.

pp. 3–4

The Court also noted that the Single Judge had indicated that any further infringement would be dealt with under Rule 2A.

p. 4

As the costs had already been paid, the Court declined to interfere.

p. 4