RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ITC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these appeals a challenge is made to the order dtd. 25/11/2021, whereby costs of Rs..00l lakh was imposed on the appellant, with a direction for payment on or before 8/12/2021.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that pursuant to the suit preferred by the plaintiff/non-appellant, an order of injunction was passed on 6/10/2021. The appellant had taken immediate steps in compliance of the said order, yet applications were filed by the plaintiff/non-appellant invoking the jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, "the CPC") alleging disobedience and breach of the order dtd. 6/10/2021. The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts of the case, found no deliberate or intentional flouting of the order so as to detain the appellant in the civil prison as provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC. The learned Single Judge yet imposed costs of Rs..00 l lakh on the appellant, though not provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant had given proper explanation for its conduct. It is stated that immediately after the injunction order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant issued instructions to all concerned not to telecast the advertisement under restrain. Despite said communication, three television channels telecast the advertisement on different dates and on knowing about it, emails were sent requesting them not to telecast the advertisement under restrain and thereupon even those three television channels did not telecast the advertisement. The television channels had submitted their explanation to the effect that the telecast was due to technical error. Thus, the court below recorded its opinion that the action of the appellant herein was not deliberate or intentional to flout the order of injunction dtd. 6/10/2021. Once the finding to this effect was recorded, there was no occasion for the court to proceed further and impose costs. It is more so when Order XXXIX Rule 2A does not provide for imposition of costs. Thus, the impugned order has been passed well beyond the power conferred under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.