- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA M.F.A.NO.3425/2000 BETWEEN: G R SHIVASHANKAR, PRESIDENT K.S & D.N EMPLOYEES' UNION P.B.NO.5531, BANGALORE-PUNE HIGHWAY RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 055. (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, ADV.)... APPELLANT AND: 1. M/S KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LTD (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956), A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING P.B.NO.5531, BANGALORE-PUNE HIGHWAY RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 055 REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI P GANESHAN 2. SRI P GANESHAN, IAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LTD., P.B.NO.5531, BANGALORE-PUNE HIGHWAY RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 055... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SREE RANGA ASSTS., ADVS. FOR R-1 SRI B.N.SURESH BABU, ADV. FOR R-2) MFA FILED U/O. 43 R 1(r) OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 16.8.2000 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4674/99 BY THE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, ALLOWING I.A. FILED U/O. 39 R 2-A OF CPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
- 2 - J U D G M E N T This is a defendant s appeal against the order of the trial Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, wherein it is held that defendant has committed an act of contempt by dis-obeying the order and there is nothing to show that he has got any property for attachment. Hence, it is ordered that the defendant be committed to civil prison for one month under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for dis-obedience of the temporary injunction passed by this Court. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for parties and I have gone through the impugned order. 3. It appears, the trial Court had granted an exparte order of temporary injunction on 22.6.1999 in terms of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. After the defendants entered appearance, the application was contested. On 16.8.2000, the learned trial Judge confirmed the exparte order of temporary injunction made on 22.6.1999. When the trial Court had granted an exparte order of injunction by following the provisions of
- 3 - Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The trial Court should have decided the application within 30 days. For the reasons not apparent on record, the trial Court did not decide the application within thirty days after appearance of defendant. The trial Court should have recorded reasons for its inability. Therefore, the trial Court has violated the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC. The trial Court had held that defendant has disobeyed the exparte order of temporary injunction granted on 22.6.1999. It is needless to state that an exparte order of temporary injunction can be granted under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC for the reasons to be recorded therein. The plaintiff can invoke Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC in case of dis-obedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted. Under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the trial Court can grant an order of temporary injunction after hearing both parties. If an order of temporary injunction
- 4 - is passed after hearing both parties and willful disobedience of the order by a party against whom injunction was granted would attract the consequences of Order 39 Rule 2-A. 4. In the case on hand, the learned trial Judge has simultaneously decided the application for temporary injunction under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC which is apparently contrary to the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. The learned trial Judge should not have simultaneously considered the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Above all, the trial Court should have recorded a finding that there was willful disobedience of order of temporary injunction under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2. The willful disobedience of an order to temporary injunction will be meted by penal consequences. If a party is held guilty of dis-obedience of order, he may be detained in civil prison and his property may be attached. Therefore, before proceeding against a party for willful
- 5 - disobedience of the order of temporary injunction, it is necessary to give notice to him to make him aware of as to what is the case, so that he can file his explanations/objections and adduce evidence, accordingly. In the case on hand, it was the contention of respondents though interim exparte order was operating against petitioner, persons claiming under petitioner are making statements through eviction or public meetings which had adversely affected business reputation of respondents. The petitioner was the President of employees of I respondent. It appears there was labour rest and there were disputes between management and its employees (workers). Therefore the learned trial Judge should have issued a notice of application to petitioner. The allegations of disobedience of order of temporary injunction are based on news paper publication. Therefore it was necessary to give a notice to petitioner as to showing acts of civil disobedience alleged against him.
- 6-5. The learned trial Judge had formulated following points:- 1. Whether the injunction order passed on I.A.No.I has to be confirmed or it has to be vacated? 2. Whether the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC has to be allowed? 6. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for answering point No.1 in affirmative are as follows:- Point No.1: As seen from the above discussion, inspite of grant of injunction by this Court, the defendant has violated the same and that also clearly shows that there are sufficient grounds for grant of injunction and the same requires to be continued. Hence, the temporary injunction passed on I.A.No.I has to be confirmed. Therefore, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 7. The learned Judge has followed the procedure, which is contrary to the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. The learned trial Judge should not have invoked the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for the alleged dis-obedience of exparte order of temporary injunction
- 7 - granted under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for confirming the exparte order of temporary injunction are untenable. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. The learned Counsel for respondents has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 1240 (in the case of Tayabbhai M.Bagasarwalla vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) to contend that dis-obedience of an order under Order 39 Rule 2-A and Section 9A even it is passed by the Court without jurisdiction, defendants can be punished for violation. In the order made in the aforestated case, plaintiff had sought for temporary injunction and ad interim injunction was granted. The defendants resisted the application for grant of temporary injunction and also raised objection regarding jurisdiction of the Court. The Court overruled the objection regarding jurisdiction and the interim order of injunction was made absolute. The defendants filed an appeal against the decision on the question of jurisdiction. When the appeal was pending,
- 8 - several other interim orders were passed by the trial Court as also by the High Court. There was disobedience of order of temporary injunction. The Supreme Court has held that though the finding of jurisdiction is adverse to plaintiff, defendants cannot escape the consequences of their dis-obedience and violation of the interim injunction committed by them prior to the High Court s decision on the question of jurisdiction. 9. In the case on hand, the exparte order of temporary injunction was made absolute. Simultaneously, defendant has been held guilty of disobedience of exparte order of temporary injunction and he has been ordered to be committed to civil prison. Therefore, what has been held in the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. 10. The learned Counsel for respondents also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5076 (in the case of Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai) wherein,
- 9 - the Supreme Court has held that in order to invoke the provisions of Section 39 Order 2-A, there shall be willful dis-obedience of the order. When the matter was pending, the Supreme Court by interim order totally prohibited/restrained contemners from creating any third party interest in any manner. The contemners created third party interest in suit property in spite of such order. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that the acts of contemners will amount to willful, intentional and deliberate disobedience. What has been held in the above said decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 11. In the result, the appeal is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. nas. Sd/- JUDGE