Order 39 Rule 2A CPC Aims To Secure Compliance, Attachment And Imprisonment Are Not Ends In Themselves: Bombay High Court

"The objective of Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC is to ensure compliance with the interim order — quite akin to the principles applicable under Order XXI, Rule 32 of the CPC in relation to enforcement of a permanent injunction. Attachment of the violator’s property or sending the violator to civil prison is not an end in itself." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 7, 2026, held that the primary objective of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is remedial and coercive to secure compliance with interim injunctions, clarifying that civil imprisonment and attachment of property are not penal ends in themselves.

A bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that civil courts must distinguish between the deeply regulated mechanism under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and the extraordinary criminal contempt jurisdiction. The court emphasized that once a party has fallen in line and halted the offending conduct, coercive measures can be substituted with appropriate remedial directions under Section 151 of the CPC.

The Khadi & Village Industries Commission (KVIC) instituted proceedings against the Mumbai Khadi & Village Industries Association (MKVIA) and its board of trustees alleging wilful violation of a December 14, 2022 injunction order. The original injunction order had restrained MKVIA from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or advertising goods under the mark 'Khadi' and the Charkha logo. KVIC filed an Interim Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC alleging that MKVIA organized a "Khadi Mahotsav 2.0" trade fair on its premises in May 2023 under its joint aegis. KVIC also filed a Contempt Petition alleging that MKVIA executed an Agreement for Sale of land using its full institutional name and maintained digital listings, both purportedly in breach of the injunction.

The primary question before the court was whether organizing a trade fair under its joint aegis on its premises constituted a wilful disobedience of the interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC. The court was also called upon to determine whether the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt applies identically to Order XXXIX Rule 2A proceedings and whether executing a property sale agreement using the institutional name amounts to civil contempt.

Distinguishing Order XXXIX Rule 2A From Contempt Jurisdiction

The court undertook a detailed doctrinal analysis of the interplay between Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Justice Sundaresan noted that while judgments like Food Corporation of India v. Sukh Deo Prasad establish that the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is punitive and akin to civil contempt, it is incorrect to conflate the two jurisdictions entirely. The legislative policy underlying Order XXXIX Rule 2A is to empower civil courts to create a strong disincentive for disobedience and ensure compliance, rather than exclusively punish the offender.

"Civil Court Possesses Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC"

The bench emphasized that unlike the extraordinary contempt jurisdiction vested in High Courts as Courts of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution, Order XXXIX Rule 2A is a deeply regulated statutory mechanism available to all civil courts. The court observed that if remedial measures can achieve compliance, the court may invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC without routinely resorting to the harsh measures of property attachment or civil imprisonment.

"Standard Of Proof Is Civil Standard Of High Preponderance"

Addressing The Evidentiary Threshold In Execution Proceedings

The court clarified that the standard of proof required to establish a violation under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is the civil standard of preponderance of probability, albeit of a high degree commensurate with the stigma attached to violating a court order. The bench cautioned against blindly importing the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt from criminal contempt cases without contextualizing the primary objective of enforcing civil interim orders.

"MKVIA Cannot Feign Ignorance Of Trade Fair Held On Its Premises"

Evaluating the facts concerning the 'Khadi Mahotsav 2.0', the court rejected MKVIA’s defense that it was unaware the three-day event was hosted on its premises under its joint aegis. The bench held that holding a trade fair promoting Khadi products in direct defiance of the injunction, following an identical prior edition, manifested a clear and conscious disregard for judicial orders. KVIC successfully discharged its burden of proof through documentary evidence showing MKVIA's active association with the event.

"Execution Of Property Sale Agreement Does Not Constitute Contempt"

Turning to the Contempt Petition, the court rejected KVIC's contention that MKVIA executing an Agreement for Sale of land using its full registered name amounted to contempt. The bench held that the injunction restrained the use of the 'Khadi' name and Charkha logo specifically in connection with the manufacture, sale, and promotion of goods and services. A bipartite land transaction bearing the institutional name has no nexus with intellectual property infringement or passing off.

"Third-Party Digital Listings Do Not Warrant Contempt Action"

The court observed that residual digital listings of MKVIA on third-party platforms, created prior to the injunction and actively sought to be removed by the trustees, did not justify invoking the heavy hand of contempt jurisdiction. In the absence of evidence showing fresh commercial utilization of such listings post-injunction, penalizing the trustees would be unwarranted.

"Compliance Achieved; Imprisonment And Attachment Dispensed With"

Noting that MKVIA had fallen in line and refrained from hosting subsequent events, the court held that the primary objective of securing compliance had been achieved. Consequently, the prayers for attachment of property and civil imprisonment were rejected. In exercise of powers under Section 151 of the CPC, the court directed MKVIA to pay litigation costs of Rs. 2,50,000 to KVIC within four weeks.

"Trustees Warned And Directed To File Compliance Affidavits"

The court issued a stern warning to the trustees of MKVIA to refrain from any future sharp practices or events conflicting with the injunction. The trustees were further directed to file an affidavit within four weeks detailing audited financial information regarding the Mahotsav, outlining institutional measures adopted to prevent future breaches, and providing status updates on the removal of third-party digital listings. The Interim Application and Contempt Petition were accordingly disposed of.

Date of Decision: 07 August 2026