CALCUTTA MEDICAL STORES Vs. STADMED PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committing the respondents for contempt and taking appropriate action against them. It is alleged that the respondents committed contempt of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, a court subordinate to this Court, by violating an order of injunction passed by the said court on June 28, 1976, in Suit No. 1219 of 1976 instituted by the petitioners. The application has been heard on contest on the point as to whether a Rule should be issued and a proceeding for contempt should be started by this Court or not.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they were appointed the sole distributor for distribution of products of the manufacturing firm, the respondent No. 1, in certain specified areas in terms of an agreement dated May 3, 1976, but the respondents in breach of that agreement failed to distribute the products of the respondent No. 1 through the petitioners and were taking steps for appointing other distributors when they instituted the above suit and obtain an injunction restraining the respondents from appointing any distributor or from selling the product of the respondent No. 1 through anybody else other than the petitioners. In the present application it is alleged that the respondents have willfully violated the said order of injunction when they have sold and are still selling the products of the respondent No. 1 either independently or through other agents.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the order of injunction, which is alleged to have been violated, is one passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta under order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being the position, violation, if any, would necessarily attract Order 39 Rule 2 sub-rule (3) of the said Code. The petitioners would not avail of such a remedy specifically provided by the Code itself and, on the other hand, they invited this Court to take appropriate action for the contempt in exercise of its power under section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In our considered opinion, it would not be a sound exercise of our discretion if we do so.