St. Ives Laboratories Inc. vs Lotus Herbals Uk Ltd.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4546 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                    Date of Reserve: October 22, 2009
                                                     Date of Order: November 09, 2009

+CCP 77 of 2001 & 46 of 2002 in CS(OS) 2836 of 2000
%                                                                          09.11.2009
     St. Ives Laboratories Inc.                                    ...Plaintiff
     Through: Mr.S.K. Bansal, Advocate

        Versus

        Lotus Herbals UK Ltd.                              ...Defendants
        Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Mr. Rahul Vidhani & Mr. O.P.Bansal, Advocates
        for R-1-4 in CCP 77 of 2001, Advocates


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


        ORDER

1. The plaintiff had filed a suit No.2836 of 2000 which was disposed of vide order

dated 27th April, 2001 by this Court on the basis of written statement filed by the

defendant, who in the written statement stated that it will not use the disputed label which

looked similar to that of plaintiff and defendant proposed to use a different label which

was annexed as R-1. This Court observed that label R-1 did not appear to be similar or

deceptively similar to the label being used by plaintiff and therefore there could be no

objection if the defendant used label R-1. This Court also observed that in view of written

statement of defendant nothing survived in the suit and disposed of the suit in view of

statement made by defendant that the impugned label shall not be used. No decree was

passed in favour of plaintiff neither an injunction was issued by order dated 27th April

CCP 77 of 2001 and 46 of 2002 in CS(OS) 2836/2000 Page 1 Of 3 2001. The record also shows that appellant/plaintiff preferred an RFA 25 of 2001 against

that order and obtained an ex parte stay against defendant permitting the defendant to use

Annexure-R-1 as its label.

2. After the suit was disposed of on 27th April 2001, the plaintiff made a petition

under Contempt of Courts Act on 11th July 2001 alleging that the defendant was still

using the earlier label. A local commissioner was appointed on application of the plaintiff

who visited the manufacturing unit of defendant and seized 78 bottles, which plaintiff

alleged to be deceptively similar to its trademark/label of plaintiff and handed over the

same on superdari to defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff preferred a second contempt petition

and in view of the report of local commissioner, it is pressed that defendant be punished

under Contempt of Courts Act.

3. Section 2 sub Section (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines civil contempt

which reads as under:-

"2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -

(a) "Contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt"

(b) "Civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

Xxxxxx"

4. It is obvious that in order to constitute a civil contempt there must be a judgment,

decree, directions, order, writ given by the Court of which breach is committed or there

must be an undertaking given to the Court by a person which is willfully breached.

5. In the present case, this Court did not pass any judgment in favour of plaintiff and

CCP 77 of 2001 and 46 of 2002 in CS(OS) 2836/2000 Page 2 Of 3 against defendant nor decreed the suit of plaintiff nor given any directions to defendant

nor passed an order in favour of plaintiff or against defendant nor issued any writ nor an

undertaking of defendant was recorded. On the basis of written statement made by

defendant that defendant will discontinue the use of impugned label, the suit was disposed

of. In case plaintiff found that the defendant had made false statement in the W.S. and the

cause of action still survived, the only remedy available with the plaintiff was to get the

suit revived and obtain an order of injunction from the Court. However, no effort was

made by plaintiff for getting the suit revived and plaintiff filed the present applications for

contempt. Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act provides that nothing contained in the

Act is to be construed to imply that a disobedience or breach of some act is punishable

under the Contempt of Courts Act which was not be so punishable apart from the Act.

Thus, all disobediences are not covered under the Contempt of Courts Act. Only those

disobedience are covered under Contempt of Courts act which are specifically provided

under the Act. Thus, in order to constitute a civil contempt, there must exist a judgment,

decree, direction, order, writ or a process of the Court or there should be an undertaking

given by the defendant to the Court. Since in this case the ingredients of Section 2(b) of

the Contempt of Courts Act were lacking and no order, decree or directions existed,

present applications under Contempt of Courts Act would not lie. I find no force in these

applications/ petitions filed under Contempt of Courts Act. The petitions are hereby

dismissed.

November 09, 2009                                     SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CCP 77 of 2001 and 46 of 2002 in CS(OS) 2836/2000                            Page 3 Of 3