Punitive Action Requires Conclusive Proof and Cannot be Taken on Presumptive Disobedience

“The Court can not presume or conjecture disobedience. In its zeal to uphold its majesty and ensure implementation of rule of law, the Court cannot hold a person guilty of violation of its orders and proceed punitively against him merely because the circumstances give rise to a strong suspicion of the order of the Court having been disobeyed. The principle that suspicion, howsoever strong, can be no substitute for proof may, in my considered opinion, be justifiably be invoked, while dealing with application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC.”

The Delhi High Court in Cross Fit LLC v. Mr. Renjith Kunnumal & Anr, through its judgment passed on October 9, 2023, opined that suspicion could not be a substitute for proof when it comes to cases concerning disobedience of court orders. 

The Plaintiff, Cross Fit LLC, had filed an application alleging disobedience of a previous order dated July 8, 2021. The said order contained operative directions where the Defendant, Mr. Renjith Kunnumal, was injuncted from using the mark "CrossFit" or any other mark/logo identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark. The Defendant was also directed to take down their website, domain name, and all the listings containing the word/mark CrossFit, including their social media pages.

Through the application filed on August 23, 2022, the plaintiff alleged a violation of directions in the order. The Court appointed a local commissioner to investigate the Defendant's premises in Kozhikode. The investigation revealed that the mark "CrossFit" was used in the gym premises, hoardings, membership application forms and online trade directories under the name “SFC CROSS FIT”. The Local Commissioner noted that Defendant 1 was not present at the premises. 

Defendant 1 submitted that their partnership with SFC CROSSFIT was dissolved on May 28, 2019, and they ceased to have any association with the gym or control over the website. The fact that the name or phone number emerged when the gym was searched for is not attributed to Defendant 1. The plaintiff had countered Defendant 1's submission, arguing that despite the dissolution of the Partnership Deed, the mark was still associated with Defendant 1 and used for the Gym premises. 

The Court heard the arguments from both parties and relied on Food Corporation of India v. Sukh Deo Prasad, (2009) 5 SCC 665, wherein the Supreme Court held that that the power exercised under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was similar to the power of the civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the disobedience had to be proved ‘beyond any doubt’ by the person who complained of such disobedience. That the power has no place in "surmises, suspicions and inferences". 

The Court also relied on U.C. Surendranath v. Mambally’s Bakery (2019) 20 SCC 666, holding in the affirmative and the decision in N.V Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 209. 

The Court accepted Defendant 1's contention that, having disassociated himself from the gym and its activities post-May 28, 2019, the email ID of the Gym cannot be regarded as his Email ID. Any act committed before August 31, 2022, cannot amount to disobedience by Defendant 1. 

The plaintiff was also unable to provide conclusive proof, which is beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant 1 associated himself with the activities of the Gym postdissolution of the partnership on May 28, 2019. The fact that the gym was set up by Defendant 1 or that it was surviving due to their professional expertise is not conclusive proof of Defendant 1’s current involvement. 

The Court also opined that the fact that the name and phone number of Defendant 1 continued to be reflected on the gym's website, but no conscious efforts were made to remove it- also does not constitute disobedience. Further, since the present case was being examined for whether Defendant 1 can be held guilty of violating directions given in the order dated July 8, 2021, and no such convincing proof of violation can be found, other considerations cease to be of relevance. 

In light of the above analysis, the Court did not find sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant 1 was guilty of contempt of the court order and dismissed the application for punitive action within legitimate peripheries of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure.