Exemplary costs imposed for non-compliance with mandatory court-directed reporting to uphold judicial sanctity.

The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendant for trademark infringement of the tagline “For The Bold,” passing off, and dilution regarding the Defendant’s “B Fizz” beverage

On 18.09.2023, the Court passed an interim order restraining the Defendant from altering its label without court approval, using the tagline as a predominant part of advertising, and directing the immediate removal of specific social media advertisements

Additionally, the Defendant was directed to file account statements every two months

The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC, alleging that the Defendant willfully disobeyed these directions by continuing to host infringing posts on X (Twitter) and Instagram and failing to file the mandated sales revenue certificates for over two and a half years

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC, which provides for consequences for the disobedience of an injunction

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Food Corporation of India v. Sukh Deo Prasad (2009), which established that the power under Rule 2A is punitive and akin to civil contempt, requiring proof of breach beyond doubt

The Court further applied the principle from U.C. Surendranath v. Mamabally’s Bakery (2019), which mandates that disobedience must be “willful” to attract penal liability, considering the potential deprivation of liberty

Finally, the Court invoked its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to uphold the majesty of justice and the sanctity of judicial orders

Regarding the social media posts, the Court observed that while the Defendant’s affidavits contained inconsistencies regarding whether the platforms were third-party or its own, the posts in question dated back to 2022, prior to the injunction

The Court accepted the Defendant’s plea that the omission to delete two specific posts among hundreds was an inadvertent oversight rather than a deliberate act of defiance; thus, it did not meet the high threshold of “willful disobedience” required for penal consequences under Rule 2A

However, regarding the non-filing of sales revenue certificates, the Court found the Defendant's conduct inexcusable. It rejected the argument that the documents were irrelevant until the trial stage, holding that the paramount consideration is the timely implementation of court directions

The Court emphasized that judicial orders cannot be treated in a perfunctory or dismissive manner and that the lack of explanation or apology in the Defendant’s affidavits signaled a serious violation of the Court’s authority

Under its powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, the Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) upon the Defendant, payable to ‘BHARAT KE VEER’ within three weeks

Furthermore, the Court directed the deponent of the Defendant’s affidavits to tender an unconditional apology within four weeks for the non-compliance

The application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A was disposed of with these directions