Dismissed

M/s Visaka Industries Ltd., v. Sri John Manoj

Telangana HC14 Oct 2014CC/1620/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case filed for disobedience of an interim injunction, the Court held that parties are bound by the injunction order. The Court found the contempt case devoid of merit as the appropriate remedy for disobeying an injunction is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) CPC to enforce it, not a penal contempt proceeding. The present case was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Case is dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending therein are closed; no order as to costs.

M/s Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs Sri John… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

CONTEMPT CASE No.1620 OF 2014

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Contempt Case, under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is filed to punish the respondents for disobedience of order of this Court, dated 17.10.2011, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1025 of 2011.

¶6

2. Petitioner filed I.A.No.1385 of 2008 in O.P.No.689 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant interim injunction restraining the respondent from acting in any way in breach of clauses 2 (a) and 2 (b) of the Agreement, dated 16.10.2004, by denying the exclusive irrevocable rights of the petitioner company and its nominees for advertisement of its product name, logo, trademark, promotional material and devices as well as enjoyment of privileges/benefits in the nature of use of four air conditioned corporate boxes in the Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium along with rights, privileges, benefits identical to those attached to similar corporate boxes along with entry and exit rights in Visaka Cricket Ground, Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium at Uppal during DLF Indian Premier League (DLF-IPL) matches being held between 18.04.2008 and 01.06.2008 or otherwise to interfere in any of the rights available to the petitioner or its nominees in any manner whatsoever pending adjudication of the main petition. The learned Chief Judge, by order, dated 16.10.2011, granted interim injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering in any manner whatsoever in any of the rights available to the petitioner or its nominees under the

¶7

agreement, dated 16.10.2004. Ad-interim order granted by this Court on 16.03.2011 stands modified and is accordingly made absolute to the extent as indicated above.

¶8

3. Allegation in the Contempt Case would go to show that there is violation of interim order, dated 16.10.2011, in Arbitration O.P.No.754 of 2011, passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since arbitration proceedings are taken up, petitioner cannot file a petition for violation of the injunction order.

¶10

5. Parties are bound by injunction order granted by the trial Court. If the order passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is in violation of injunction order by a party to injunction order, petitioner has to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). The Court has power and can pass appropriate order to ensure that the directions issued by it are implemented and enforced. The primary object of Rule 2 (A) CPC is not to punish a person, who has disobeyed an order of injunction, but to enforce it. Willful disobedience, no doubt, invites the wrath of penal action as envisaged in Order XXXIX Rule 2 (A) CPC. Therefore, the Contempt Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Contempt Case shall stand closed.

¶12

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶13

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS OCTOBER 14, 2014

¶14

YVL

¶15

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶16

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶17

CONTEMPT CASE No.1620 OF 2014

¶18

DATE:14.10.2014

¶19

YVL

M/s Visaka Industries Ltd., v. Sri John Manoj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Visaka Industries Ltd., v. Sri John Manoj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Pesala Jayadeva Reddy, Vs The Special Court

Ch.v.v.R.S.N Murthy Vs The Commissionar of Collegiate Education Government of

G. Sheshaiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Kasi Reddy Madan Mohan Reddy

M. Babu Rao, Vs The Deputy Director

Sayam Srinivas Vs Sayam Manjula