STANVAC CHEMICALS INDIA LTD. v. SACHIN PANDEY

1. This is an application by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) alleging disobedience, by the defendant, of the order dated 1 June 2023, passed by this Court in IA 11015/2023 in CS (COMM) 386/2023. The injunction granted in the said order is in the following terms:

2. Mr. Biala, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has sought to support his plea of disobedience, by the defendant, of the injunction granted by this Court on the basis of two documents, shown to the Court during hearing. These are (i) two purchase orders dated 6 June 2023 and 7 June 2023, placed on the defendant by the Central Railway, whereby the Central Railway has, against the bid dated 23 May 2023 of the defendant, ordered 415 contact cleaners of the make “Stanvac Chemicals” and (ii) the webpages of the defendant’s website which contains links marked “Get Technical Data Sheet” which, if clicked, take one to a page which provides a Technical Data Sheet for “3001 Super Penetrant”, with the marks and, figuring at the top of the page.

3. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, learned Counsel for the defendant submits that, after passing of the injunction order, there has been no reply or dealing by the plaintiff in any goods bearing the marks which stand injuncted by para 20 of the order dated 1 June 2023.

4. To my mind, neither of the documents cited by Mr Biala can constitute disobedience of the injunction granted by this Court vide its order dated 1 June 2023.

5. The terms of the injunction granted by this Court are clear and categorical. The defendant has been restrained from dealing in any products under the marks or any identical or deceptively similar mark.

6. Neither of the documents shown to me by Mr. Biala can make out a case of breach of this injunction.

7. The purchase order dated 6 June 2023 has been placed on the defendant by the Railways. The bid, in reference to which the purchase order has been issued on 23 May 2023, prior to the passing of the injunction order dated 1 June 2023.

8. Mere placing of the purchase order on the defendant by the Railways cannot constitute a breach of the injunctive directions by the defendant. No doubt if the defendant were to respond to the purchase order or were to supply goods, as sought by the Railways, using the injuncted marks, then, prima facie, a case of breach of the injunction order would exist. No such action, on the part of the defendant is, however, even alleged.

9. The same position applies with respect to the purchase order dated 7 June 2023. It is not the case of the plaintiff that any goods have been supplied by the defendant under either of these purchase orders or that the defendant has even responded to either of these purchase orders to the Railways undertaking to supply any goods.

10. Mr. Biala has also drawn my attention to the reference to LOA No. DLS/PUNE/65235080/742768 dated 6 June 2023 in the purchase order dated 7 June 2023. An LOA is the Letter of Acceptance by the Railways of the bid of the defendant and, again, does not constitute a representation, by the defendant, that it is continuing to use of any of the injuncted marks.

11. Apropos the website of the defendant and the link “Get Technical Data Sheet Link”, which re-directs to the page having as one of the marks, represented at the top of the page, the mere fact that the mark figures at the top of the page which provides Technical Data with reference to one of the defendant’s products does not amount to dealing, by the defendant, of any product having any of the impugned marks.

12. The Court cannot blindly issue notice on an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC as proceedings under the said provision are in the nature of contempt and partake of` quasi-criminal character.

13. No case for issuance of notice in the present application is made out.