In a significant legal development, the High Court of Kerala has affirmed the Trial Court’s order in the trademark dispute involving Mambally’s Bakery. The case centered around allegations of willful disobedience of a court order, leading to a sentence of imprisonment. The court’s decision sheds light on the legal principles surrounding intentional disobedience and civil imprisonment. Let’s delve into the details of this noteworthy case.
Facts
- The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam affirmed the order of the Trial Court passed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the C.P.C.
- The High Court upheld the sentence of imprisonment of one week imposed upon the respondent.
- The Trial Court granted an interim injunction against the appellant on 04.11.2015, served on 09.11.2015.
- An advocate Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court inspected the appellant’s shop on 07.11.2015 and noted the use of the respondent’s trademark ‘Mambally’s Bakery’.
- The Commissioner’s report indicated that the appellant was selling tea cakes and masala cakes using the respondent’s trademark.
- The Trial Court found willful disobedience by the appellant based on the Commissioner’s report and directed a one-week imprisonment.
- The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the Trial Court’s decision.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Arguments
- The appellant explained that the hoarding is at a height of 13 feet and there is a scarcity of labor force.
- The appellant, being 40% disabled, was incapacitated from climbing up to remove the hoarding by himself.
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Analysis
- To find a person guilty of willful disobedience of the order under XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C., there must be a ‘willful disobedience’ and not just mere disobedience.
- The requirement is not just about disobedience, but about the disobedience being intentional and deliberate.
- The burden of proving willful disobedience lies on the party alleging it.
- Evidence must demonstrate the deliberate act of disobedience for the person to be found guilty of willful disobedience.
- The standard of proof required is about establishing a deliberate and intentional act of disobedience, rather than a mere failure to comply.
- The Commissioner noted the non-removal of the hoarding in front of the appellant’s shop.
- To establish willful disobedience as a criminal liability, it must be proven to the court.
- During the second visit, tea cakes and masala cakes were sold without wrappers/labels at the appellant’s shop.
- Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC was invoked to sentence the appellant to civil imprisonment for one week.
- The court did not find any ‘willful disobedience’ on the part of the appellant.
- The appellant provided an acceptable explanation for the circumstances.
- The court considered the appellant’s explanation and did not find it necessary to impose civil imprisonment.
Also Read: Compromise Reached: Reddy Satyanarayana vs Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao
Decision
- O.S.NO.1 of 2015 is pending consideration
- The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the said suit and dispose of it expeditiously
- No costs are to be awarded
- The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed
- No opinion has been expressed on the merits of the matter or the contentions raised by the parties
Case Title: U.C. SURENDRANATH Vs. MAMBALLYS BAKERY
Case Number: C.A. No.-005775-005775 / 2019
