JATIN PARIKH Vs. WHATMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 01.02.2019 passed on an application being I.A.5235/2018 filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The defendants in the suit including appellant, who was arrayed as defendant no.4 in the suit, stand convicted. The matter stands adjourned by the learned Single Judge for 02.05.2019 for hearing on the punishment to be awarded.

(2.) The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant, who was defendant no.4 in the suit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has completely lost track of the fact that defendant no.4 carried on business in the name and style of M/s. Nimisha Trading Company engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, advertising etc., of filter paper under the trade mark LABSMAN. He submitted that defendant No. 4 has nothing to do with the business of M/s Vidhi Traders, which is a sole proprietorship concern of Mr.Rakesh Gandhi. He contends that the appellant has not in any way violated the order dated 23.05.2014. In fact, according to him the respondent who was a plaintiff in the suit, had set up their entire case against the other defendants. According to the learned counsel, there is no specific allegation or averment made in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC against the appellant (defendant no.4 in the suit). It is contended that the plaintiff had made a general averment that the defendants are related to each other and they have acted in concert. Counsel further submits that while the learned Single Judge took into consideration the fact that local commissioners were appointed, premises of the defendants were raided and goods were found, but lost track of the fact that the plaintiff did not seek appointment of any local commissioner with respect to the premises of the appellant (defendant no.4 in the suit). Counsel for the appellant also submits that during the pendency of the matter, the other defendants (not appellant) were directed to remain present in the Court and their statements were recorded, which have been extracted in the impugned order. It is on the basis of these statements, that the learned Single Judge concluded that despite the statements before the Court, the defendants showed scant regard to the orders passed by the Court. Learned counsels submits that this yardstick could not be applied to the appellant as his statement was never recorded and so there was no question of his having disregarded any order of the Court. Additionally, the counsel contends that a composite reading of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC would leave no room for doubt that even as per the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein), defendant no.4 did not violate any order much less the order dated 23.05.2014 of which violation is alleged. Counsel submits that to seek relief under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, it was mandatory for the applicant to show precisely as to which of the alleged contemnors had committed contempt and in what manner the order was violated. A general statement to the effect that the parties acted in concert and that they are related to each other cannot be a ground by itself to invoke the stringent provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and Contempt of Court Act, 1971.