Bombay High Court holds injunction breaches under Order XXXIX Rule 2A are judged on a high civil standard, not beyond reasonable doubt; directs Khadi body to pay ₹2.5 lakh costs

The Khadi & Village Industries Commission (“KVIC”) obtained an interim injunction dated 14 December 2022 restraining the Mumbai Khadi & Village Industries Association (“MKVIA”), its representatives and persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, advertising or providing goods or services under the mark “Khadi”, using the Charkha logo, or using “Khadi” in its trade or business name in a manner amounting to infringement or passing off.

Within five months of the injunction, MKVIA’s premises hosted “Khadi Mahotsav 2.0”, a three-day trade event for Khadi products.

Promotional material described the event as being jointly organised under the aegis of Atharva School of Fashion and Arts and MKVIA, and displayed the word “Khadi” and a Charkha symbol.

KVIC filed Interim Application No. 5867 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), alleging breach of the injunction.

KVIC also filed Contempt Petition No. 13 of 2026 alleging contempt based on MKVIA’s use of its name in an Agreement for Sale of immovable property and its continued appearance in third-party digital business listings.

The proceedings were heard together.

Whether the hosting and promotion of “Khadi Mahotsav 2.0” at MKVIA’s premises, with MKVIA shown as a joint organiser, constituted disobedience of the injunction order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

What standard of proof applies in proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, and whether such proceedings are governed by the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt or the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Whether the execution of an Agreement for Sale referring to MKVIA by its full institutional name constituted contempt of the injunction order.

Whether the continued presence of MKVIA’s name in pre-existing third-party digital business listings constituted contempt.

Whether attachment of property or detention in civil prison was necessary, and what remedial directions ought to be issued upon finding a breach.

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, and Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, under which breach of a specific injunction or order may result in attachment of property or detention in civil prison for securing compliance.

Relying principally on Food Corporation of India v. Sukh Deo Prasad, (2009) 5 SCC 665, it held that the order must contain a clear and discernible obligation and that obligations cannot be inferred from surmise or conjecture.

It distinguished the contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 from the enforcement jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, observing that the latter is primarily remedial and intended to secure compliance.

The Court considered Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 59, on attachment as a coercive measure to enforce compliance; U.C. Surendranath v. Mambally’s Bakery, (2019) 20 SCC 666, on wilful disobedience; and Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 209, on the distinction between enforcement under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and punitive contempt.

It held that the appropriate standard for determining violation under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is a high degree of preponderance of probabilities, commensurate with the stigma attached to breach of a court order, while attachment or civil imprisonment must be used cautiously and only where necessary to secure compliance.

The Court also invoked Section 151 CPC to issue remedial directions in the interests of justice.

The injunction expressly prohibited MKVIA, directly or indirectly, from advertising or promoting goods under the “Khadi” mark or using the Charkha logo in connection with such activity.

The Court found that the Mahotsav was not an unrelated third-party event: it was a Khadi trade fair held for three days on MKVIA’s premises, following the same format as an earlier event, and its promotional material publicly identified MKVIA as a joint organiser.

MKVIA’s assertion that it had no knowledge of the event was considered implausible, particularly because the event occurred on its premises and involved conduct substantially identical to the pre-injunction event.

On a high degree of preponderance of probabilities—and, in the Court’s view, even beyond reasonable doubt—the Court found a violation and a conscious disregard of the injunction.

However, because MKVIA had not conducted subsequent events and had thereby achieved compliance, attachment and civil imprisonment were unnecessary; the purpose of Order XXXIX Rule 2A was remedial rather than punitive.

The Agreement for Sale did not involve the sale or promotion of Khadi products, and the use of MKVIA’s institutional name in a land transaction had no nexus with the prohibited activity.

Similarly, pre-existing listings maintained by third-party platforms, without proof of a fresh listing or post-injunction use, did not justify contempt action.

It directed MKVIA’s Board of Trustees not to host any event relating to Khadi or its promotion, whether on MKVIA’s premises or elsewhere.

Since MKVIA had ceased holding such events and was complying with the injunction, the Court declined to order attachment of property or detention in civil prison.

Exercising powers under Section 151 CPC, it directed MKVIA to pay KVIC litigation costs of Rs. 2,50,000 within four weeks and warned the trustees against future violations.

The Court declined to exercise contempt jurisdiction in respect of the Agreement for Sale and the residual third-party digital listings.

The trustees were further directed to file affidavits disclosing the facts and audited financial information concerning the Mahotsav, institutional compliance measures, and efforts to remove the third-party listings within four weeks of the judgment’s upload.

Both the Interim Application and the Contempt Petition were accordingly disposed of.