Delhi HC Adds Haleon Defendants To Contempt Case Over Alleged Undertaking Breach Despite Petition’s Omission, As They Were Parties To Main Suit

The Plaintiffs filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an undertaking given on behalf of the Defendants that there would be no fresh circulation of the impugned advertisements or product detailers/pamphlets until the next hearing.

The petition named individuals said to be the Defendants’ directors and authorised representatives, but did not initially implead the corporate Defendants.

The Respondents objected that the petition was not maintainable without joining the companies under Section 12(4) and (5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (“CC Act”).

The Plaintiffs offered to implead the companies and submitted that the Court could issue notice to them in any event.

Section 12(4) of the CC Act provides for liability of both a company and persons in charge of, and responsible for, its business when the company commits contempt by breaching an undertaking; Section 12(5) addresses liability of officers where the contempt is attributable to their consent, connivance or neglect.

The Court held that the company must be arraigned before the liability of such persons can be determined, but its initial non-joinder is not fatal because contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor, and the Court may initiate proceedings suo motu under Article 215 of the Constitution.

A party bringing alleged contempt to the Court’s attention acts as an informant; contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and require fair procedure and sufficient notice to the alleged contemnor.

The Court relied on Pushpaben v. Narandas V. Badiani, Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, Maruti Udyog Limited v. Mahinder C. Mehta, R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, Court on its own motion v. State and Sahdeo v. State of U.P.

It treated Kalimirch Vyapari Association v. Vijay Kumar Venkataraman and Matrix Cellular Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjoy Mukherji as per incuriam for not considering the relevant Supreme Court authorities and the High Court’s independent contempt jurisdiction.

The undertaking had been given on behalf of the corporate Defendants, so Section 12(4) required the companies to be joined before the Court could determine the liability of the individuals said to be responsible for their affairs.

However, the Court rejected the argument that the companies’ initial omission required dismissal. Because contempt jurisdiction is exercised by the Court and may be invoked suo motu, the Court could issue notice to the companies already parties to the underlying suit and add them to the contempt proceedings.

This approach preserved the statutory requirement that the companies be parties while avoiding dismissal solely on a curable non-joinder.

It issued notice to both Defendants, whose counsel accepted notice, impleaded them as Respondents Nos. 7 and 8, and directed the Plaintiffs to file an amended memo of parties.

Defendant No. 2 was directed to file a reply by 4 November 2026 if taking a stand additional to or inconsistent with that of Respondents Nos. 1–6; the matter was listed for further hearing on 5 November 2026.

The order addressed the maintainability objection and impleadment; it did not determine whether the undertaking had in fact been wilfully breached.