Facts
The Appellant (Anamika Prakashan) and Respondent (Vani Prakashan) are publishing houses involved in a copyright dispute over a book titled ‘Bhartiya Cinema’ authored by the late Mahendra Mishra.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4-5Vani Prakashan filed a commercial suit [CS(Comm) No. 1753/2020] claiming exclusive rights under an agreement dated August 2, 2018.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5-6The Commercial Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction on December 5, 2020, restraining the Appellant from selling the book, which was later made absolute on December 20, 2023.
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 6-7Alleging continued sales on Amazon and Flipkart despite the stay, the Respondent filed a contempt petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 7On July 7, 2025, the District Judge found the Appellant’s proprietor, Ms. Geeta Shukla, guilty of deliberate disobedience, sentencing her to two months’ simple imprisonment and directing the attachment of her property for one year.
Source reference: p. 1-2, para. 2-3; p. 5-6, para. 22-23The Appellant challenged this order before the High Court.
Source reference: no citationIssues
Whether the order of civil imprisonment and property attachment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC was sustainable given the Appellant’s age and the specific facts of the alleged violation.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 16Whether the deposit of a monetary sum by the Appellant could suffice to purge the contempt and stay the execution of the sentence and attachment.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 18Law Applied
The Court applied Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides the mechanism for consequences of disobedience or breach of an injunction, including property attachment and detention in civil prison.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 2The court balanced these penal provisions against the principle of proportionality and the discretionary power of the High Court in appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) to fashion a remedy that ensures compliance ("purging of contempt") without necessarily resorting to incarceration.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 18-19Reasoning
The Court observed that while interim injunctions must be "unscrupulously complied with," the Appellant’s proprietor was a 67-year-old elderly woman and a publisher.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 16The Appellant contended that the evidence of sales was unreliable and that only 30 copies had been sold since acquiring the rights.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 14To balance the majesty of the court with the specific circumstances of the contemnor, the High Court directed the Appellant to deposit ₹70,000 before the Trial Court as a condition to stay the imprisonment and attachment.
Source reference: p. 9-10, para. 16-18Upon confirmation that the deposit was made and the FDR was placed with the Trial Court, the High Court determined that this act effectively purged the contempt, rendering further punitive measures such as imprisonment unnecessary for the administration of justice.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 18-19Holding
The High Court held that the deposit of ₹70,000 was sufficient for the purging of the contempt by the Appellant.
The Court stayed the directions for civil imprisonment, arrest warrants, and property attachment.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 13It ordered that the FDR be kept in safe custody and renewed during the pendency of the main suit [CS(Comm) No. 1753/2020], with its final disbursement abiding by the outcome of the suit.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 20-21The appeal was disposed of with a direction to transmit the contempt file to the court where the main suit is pending.
Source reference: p. 11, para. 23-24Original Court PDF
Anamika Prakashan v. Vani Prakashan & Anr. [FAO (COMM) 220/2025]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in