LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER Vs. CAPITAL GENERAL STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interlocutory orders of injunction are passed by this Court, on a daily basis, in intellectual property matters. The Court finds itself faced, in several such cases, with applications under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by plaintiffs complaining that the defendants have violated the interim order of injunction. In many such cases " " as in the present " " the allegation is found to be true. The violation, however, generally stops on or before the date when the court issues notice on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A. The plaintiff, however, insists, and not without justification, that the defendant cannot be let off. A violator, asserts the plaintiff, is a violator, and deserves to be punished. The Supreme Court echoes this sentiment, in para 54 of Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 5 SCC 450:

(2.) There is a divergence of opinion, in judgments of the Supreme Court, on whether Order XXXIX Rule 2A confers, or does not confer, a power of contempt, and also, therefore, whether the disobedience which would invite punitive action under the said provision has necessarily to be willful. Food Corporation of India v. Sukh Deo Prasad (2009) 5 SCC 665 and U.C. Surendranath v. Mambally's Bakery (2019) 20 SCC 666 hold in the affirmative, thus:

(3.) Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 209however, struck a dissenting note: