Court cannot proceed against a person merely to uphold its own majesty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that in its zeal to uphold its own majesty, a court cannot hold a person guilty of violation of its orders and proceed punitively against him merely because there is a strong suspicion of orders having been disobeyed [Cross Fit LLC v Mr Renjith Kunnumal & Anr].

Justice C Hari Shankar said that the Court cannot presume or conjecture disobedience, and suspicion can never be the substitute for proof.

“The court can not presume or conjecture disobedience. In its zeal to uphold its majesty and ensure implementation of rule of law, the court cannot hold a person guilty of violation of its orders and proceed punitively against him merely because the circumstances give rise to a strong suspicion of the order of the court having been disobeyed. The principle that suspicion, howsoever strong, can be no substitute for proof may, in my considered opinion, be justifiably be invoked, while dealing with application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC,” the Bench noted.

The Court made the remarks while dealing with an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) alleging disobedience of an injunction order passed by the High Court on July 8, 2021 in a trademark infringement suit filed by CrossFit LLC.

It was alleged that despite the injunction order, the defendant Renjith Kunnumal was using the trademark ‘SFC CROSSFIT” for his gym in Kozhikode and that the membership form of the gym also continued to use the logo.

The plaintiff therefore sought punitive action against Kunnumal under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.

The defendant contended that he has nothing to do with the said gym because his partnership was dissolved in May 2019.

After considering the case, Justice Hari Shankar said that he cannot persuade himself to justify the conviction and punishment of the defendant in this case as there was no satisfactory proof that he was served in the matter and secondly, there is no conclusive proof that he was still associated with the gym.

The Court, therefore, rejected the application.

“In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to bring myself to hold that Defendant 1 can be found guilty of having disobeyed the order dated 8 July 2021 passed by this Court, or to punish Defendant 1 in that regard, within the legitimate peripheries of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC,” it concluded.

Advocates Saif Khan, Shobhit Agrawal and Prajjwal Kushwaha appeared for CrossFit LLC.

Defendant Renjith Kunnumal was represented through advocates Akash Vajpai and Sudheesh KK.

[Read Judgment]