Court Exercising Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Enlarge Scope Of Relief Claimed In Main Proceedings: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings.

In this case, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana had passed a status quo order in a Trademark suit filed by Jaininder Jain seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents from using the trademark "KANGARO". 

In a contempt petition filed before the Delhi High Court, Jaininder Jain alleged that inspite of being injuncted by virtue of status quo order from interfering with their use of trademark "KANGARO", the respondents, in defiance of such order got the petitioners' consignments to Dubai and Sri Lanka seized and are now in the process of prosecuting their action for destruction of the seized consignment, before the Dubai Court.

The High Court issued a direction not to pursue the matter further before Dubai Court concerning infringement action in respect of trademark "Kangaro". It also dismissed the contention that no interim order restraining the respondents from proceeding with the matter before the Dubai Court could have been passed in the present case in view of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act or in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. Aggrieved with this order, the Kangaro Industries approached the Apex Court.

The Apex court bench noted that that this order in contempt action was unwarranted and avoidable.

"We say so because it is not open to the Court in contempt jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings being CS(OS) No. 156 of 2004 and more so, when the initial interim relief (07.01.1997) is limited to the registered trademark "KANGARO", in India."

The court clarified that the plaintiff can take recourse to other proceedings for appropriate relief including for anti-suit injunction in respect of foreign jurisdiction or simplicitor injunction, as may be advised.

Case details

Kangaro Industries (Regd)  vs Jaininder Jain | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 437 | CA 5007 OF 2008 | 6 April 2022

Coram: Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and CT Ravikumar

Headnotes

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - It is not open to the Court in contempt jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings

Click Here To Read/Download Order