Intellectual Property Rights: Practice and Drafting by Adv Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


breach of injunction order under order 39 rule 1&2

Whether for the breach of violation of a interim order passed by a subordinate court under Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. Contempt petition under Section 10 of Contempt of courts act, 1971 maintainable?


 11 Replies

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     29 October 2009

No. The relevant proviaions of breach of injunction may be visited by attachment and imprisonment as envisaged in Order 39 Rule 2A.

1 Like

Anish goyal (Advocate)     29 October 2009

Remedy is there in O 39 r. 2A. It will be interesting to see whether contempt of court will apply here?

Anish goyal (Advocate)     29 October 2009

Asumi sir can you please tell me the scope of the section 10 contempt of courts act. Please clarify it.

R.R. KRISHNAA (Legal Manager)     29 October 2009

Recently decided cases clearly hold that the remedy for the aggreived petitioner is only Order 39 Rule 2A

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     29 October 2009

Remedy is available under Order 39 Rule 2A and no where than this special provision.

1 Like

Sanjeev Kuchhal (Publishers)     29 October 2009

In Kapildeo Prasad Sah And Others v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 569 it was held that, for holding the respondents to have committed civil contempt it has to be shown that there has been a wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. It was further observed that power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the Court's order. Whether the disobedience is wilful in a particular case depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further observed that the term "wilful" excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. In the said case there was a serious dispute as to whether the appellants were appointed against any vacancies existing on a particular date. The Supreme Court found that the said question required examination perhaps by way of interlocutory application in the writ petition but not by way of contempt. Thus, on facts, it was held that no case of contempt was made out when there was a genuine dispute as to whether the appellants satisfied the conditions subject to which the Court had directed payment of salary. In Indian Airports Employees Union v. Rajan Chatterjee and Anr. 1999 I CLR 706 S.C. it was held that, it was well settled that the disobedience of the orders of the Court to amount to "civil contempt" under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must be "wilful" and proof of mere disobedience is not sufficient.

Also the existence of alternative remedy has been held to be a sound reason enough not to entertain contempt proceedings.

Sanjeev Kuchhal (Publishers)     29 October 2009

Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in its judgment in the case of Rudraiah vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1982 Kar. 182, in paragraph 5 observed thus:

"It is a well settled principle of law that when there is special law and general law, the provisions of the special law prevail over the general law and when special procedure and special provision are contained in the C.P.C. itself under Order 39 Rule 20 for taking action for the disobedience of an order of injunction, the general law of contempt of Court cannot be invoked. If such a course encouraged holding that it amounts to contempt of Court. when an order of subordinate Court is not obeyed, it is sure to throw open a floodgate of litigation under contempt jurisdiction. Every decree-holder can rush to this Court stating that the decree passed by a subordinate Court is not obeyed. That is not the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act."


In Bengal Excise licenses Association v. Raghvendra Singh and others AIR 2007 SC 1386 such question was raised


Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper construction company ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2205

Vinod (CMO)     11 June 2012



In Misc.Civil Appeal 116/10- made by Appealants on us, over Interim Order got in our favour-in Regular Civil Suit 128/10 -

The Hon’ble District Court (i.e.the Appelate authority)-in M.C.A.116/10-Had given Status-quo orders to Appelants for transactions in respect of Current Bank A/c of Firm's Bk,at Satara,But still Appealants have Breached the Injunction Order & continued to do transactions with same Bank Account,& has purposefully done Contempt of Court.


Now  How (under which section) & Where (which CIVIL COURT OR APPEALATE DISTRICT COURT OR HIGH COURT) should we apply for its Punishment- for hardest punishment??


Punishment for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as well as under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is in addition to all other powers that may be available with the Court including those provided under the provisions of :-

1. Order 39  Rule 2A CPC OR  Rule 11.

2. Section 22 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

3. Section 151 of the C.P.C.

Manabendra (Legal assistant)     01 September 2012

The Ld. Civil Judge passed order of attachment of a joint firm(brick field) and appointed receiver, but the defendant threatened over phone and restrained him from entering into the firm office for inventory etc. and  during this period, sold out the  landed property and other immovable assets of about 3 crores. Now what remedy  unde what section is applicable is it can be filed  under section 10 or 12 of the Contempt of Court or under any other provisions of CPC





Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register