Unconditional Apology Cannot Substitute Physical Surrender in Cases of Willful Disobedience and Absconding

The Respondent filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off regarding the mark "JAIN SHIKANJI." On 05.11.2022, the Trial Court granted an interim injunction against the Petitioner

Despite this, the Petitioner allegedly continued business activities, leading the Respondent to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC for willful disobedience

On 03.06.2023, the Trial Court found the Petitioner’s Director, Mr. Anubhav Jain, guilty of contempt, ordering property attachment and eight weeks of civil imprisonment

This order was upheld by the High Court Division Bench and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court

Instead of surrendering as directed, Mr. Jain absconded and later filed an application under Section 151 CPC tendering an unconditional apology, which the Trial Court dismissed via an order dated 01.06.2026, issuing fresh arrest warrants and a cost of Rs. 5 lacs

The Petitioner challenged this dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the Petitioner's unconditional apology and issuing fresh warrants of arrest/attachment in light of the Director's repeated non-compliance with surrender orders

2. Whether the exemplary cost of Rs. 5 lacs imposed by the Trial Court was excessive given the circumstances

Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which provides for the attachment of property and detention in civil prison for the disobedience of an injunction

Principles governing the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that judicial orders must be obeyed in letter and spirit and that willful defiance of the court’s authority warrants coercive action

The Court observed that Mr. Anubhav Jain’s conduct demonstrated a calculated attempt to circumvent judicial mandates. Despite categorical directions from the Division Bench to surrender by 19.09.2025 and the Trial Court’s repeated instructions for physical appearance, the Director remained absconding, rendering the Non-Bailable Warrants unexecuted

The Court rejected the Petitioner's defense that non-appearance was due to "stress" or a preference for video conferencing, noting that such excuses cannot override high court directions to surrender for physical punishment

The Court characterized the Director's attitude as a "mockery of law" and "complete defiance," concluding that the apology was not bona fide but a strategic move to avoid the consequences of a conviction that had already attained finality through the Supreme Court

The petition was dismissed, upholding the order dated 01.06.2026. However, upon the Petitioner’s request and undertaking to pay within two weeks, the Court modified the order solely to reduce the exemplary cost from Rs. 5 lacs to Rs. 3 lacs