PVG Industries vs Premier Industries Drives (P) Ltd.

R. Banumathi, J.—This contempt appeal is filed against the order dated 13.8.2004 passed in Contempt Petition No. 46 of 2000 by P.K.

Misra J.

When the matter came up for admission, we have heard Ms.Chitra Narayan for the appellant and Mr. Sathish Parasaran for the respondent

caveator.

Relevant facts which led to the present appeal could briefly be stated thus: (DB) (R, Banumathi, J.) A. No. 817 of 1998 in C.S. No. 963 of

1998 was filed by the respondent - M/s.Premier Industries Drives (P) Limited, the plaintiff, for injunction and other reliefs in respect of wet

grinders manufactured by the applicant as per the Patent, bearing No. 179607. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff obtained

an interim order of injunction restraining the defendant ""from in any way using the process within the range, scope or purview of the said Patent

bearing No. 179607 ..."" At that stage, the plaintiff has filed Contempt Petition No. 46 of 2000 on the allegation that in spite of the interim order of

injunction, the defendant has wilfully disobeyed and violated the order and continued to produce the wet grinders and issued several

advertisements. The defendant has filed elaborate counter statement contesting that contempt application.

In consideration of the contention of the parties in the contempt application, the learned single Judge found that the questions raised in the

contempt application could be dealt with in the suit itself. The learned Judge was of the view that ''whether the patent right of the plaintiff has been

violated or not, would depend upon several facts, including the opinion of the experts, for which, the evidence is to be adduced'' and that it is a

matter of appreciation of evidence. The learned single Judge was also of the view that "" ... when such questions are yet to be decided at a later

stage while deciding the suit finally, it may not be proper to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court"". Learned Judge has also found that

it would be open to the plaintiff to file any fresh application in respect of any subsequent cause of action in accordance with law. Aggrieved over

the above order, the appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal.

On those findings, the Contempt Petition No. 46 of 2000 was directed to be treated as an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. and

learned Judge directed that the matter should be taken up along with the final disposal of the suit. Learned Judge has further directed that, ""to

ensure compliance regarding payment of compensation or damages, in case it is ultimately ordered, the respondent is directed to furnish security to

the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 to the satisfaction of the Hon''ble trial Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned single Judge has erred in converting the contempt petition into one under Order 39,

Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code, which is beyond the scope of Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. The order of the learned single Judge, directing

the appellant to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, is very much assailed on the ground that the order is not in consonance with the other

findings of the learned Judge that there is no contempt and when the learned single Judge has relegated the issue of finding whether there is a

contempt, to the stage of the suit and not to have directed the appellant to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs,

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and perused the impugned order.

On a perusal of the impugned order, we see that the learned Judge has not recorded any specific finding as to whether there is any contempt.

The learned Judge has only found that"" ... the question as to whether the order of the Court has been violated or not, would depend upon several

facts for which it may be necessary to hold enquiry and appreciate evidence on either side. In such a situation, it may not be appropriate for the

Court to decide such aspects in a contempt proceedings while the main suit or other connected proceedings is still pending. .."" So finding, the

learned single Judge has directed the contempt petition to be treated as an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. and to be heard along

with the suit. We find no error in such an approach in converting that application.

Likewise, we find no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant assailing the direction of the learned single Judge, directing the

appellant to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. Though the issue of determining the contempt or otherwise is relegated to the stage of the

suit, during the pendency of the suit, the right of the respondent/plaintiff has to be sufficiently safeguarded. After conclusion of the trial, if the

appellant/ defendant is found to have violated the order of the Court, necessarily, the interest of the plaintiff is to be safeguarded and a direction to

furnish security is very much appropriate.

Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. deals with consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction and it contemplates that, ""in the case of

disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 ..... any Court.... may order the property of the person guilty of

such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison ... "". Thus Order 39, Rule 2-A,

C.P.C. even contemplates the order of attachment of the property. In this case, for safeguarding the interest of the respondent/plaintiff, the Court

has only directed the appellant/ defendant to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. That direction of furnishing security is very much essential, if

in conclusion of trial, the appellant/defendant is found to have violated the order of the Court. We find no serious prejudice being caused to the

appellant/defendant. We find no error in the impugned order. The issue of determining the contempt is only relegated to the stage of the suit and

security is directed to be furnished only till the disposal of the suit. Since no contentious points are urged, we are of the view that this is not a case

for admission.

The concept appeal is dismissed, confirming the impugned order. No costs. Consequently, CM.P. No. 16964 of 2004 is closed.

Learned counsel for the appellant made a request that the application may be directed to be heard at an early date. It is for the learned counsel

for the appellant to make necessary request before the learned single Judge. If any such request is made, the learned single Judge is free to

consider the same. RSN