Use of disputed technology in Goa did not breach an injunction confined to BMTC/DTC.

Series 5 Labs filed O.S. No. 7314/2023 seeking, among other reliefs, injunctions concerning the “BMTC Passes” and “AC Bus Tickets” features on the respondents’ Tummoc applications

The trial court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from making those features available to the public

In MFA No. 483/2024, the High Court stayed the trial court’s order to the extent that use of the app by BMTC/DTC was permitted, leaving the remainder of the order unchanged

Series 5 Labs then alleged that the respondents’ use of the technology for e-ticketing in Goa, under a contract with the Kadamba Road Transport Corporation, violated the High Court’s order

1. Whether the respondents’ use of the Tummoc app for e-ticketing in Goa amounted to wilful disobedience of the High Court’s order dated 19 February 2024

2. Whether the interim injunction, as framed in the suit and modified in appeal, extended beyond BMTC/DTC to use of the technology elsewhere

The petition invoked Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution, which provide the basis for the High Court’s contempt jurisdiction and its power to punish contempt

The court’s reasoning applied the principle that contempt depends on disobedience of the direction actually made; the scope of that direction is determined by its terms and the relief sought in the underlying proceedings.

The judgment cites no precedent

The court compared the relief sought in the suit with the trial court’s interim order and the High Court’s appellate order.

It found that the plaintiff’s requested relief concerned BMTC/DTC and did not seek an all-India restraint on use of the Tummoc app or technology.

The appellate order permitted use of the app by BMTC/DTC and did not impose a general prohibition on its use elsewhere.

Accordingly, the respondents’ Goa e-ticketing activity fell outside the restraint said to have been breached, and the complainant could not use contempt proceedings to obtain a broader injunction than the one sought in the suit.

It closed the contempt proceedings and discharged the contempt notice.