Delhi High Court - Orders
Itc Limited vs Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors on 3 March, 2023
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 647/2019 & I.As. 16693/2019, 16694/2019.
ITC LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Mr. Rohan
Swarup, Ms. Tanya Arora and Ms.
Anjalika Arora, Advocates.
versus
RAJ KUMAR MITTAL & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Pawan Malik, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1/ Contemnor No. 1
along with Mr. Prem Chand Mittal, in
person.
Mr. Vipul Kr. Sharma, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2/ Contemnor No. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 03.03.2023 CCP(O) 9/2020 (u/Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for deliberate disobedience of the injunction order dated 28 th November, 2019)
1. Pursuant to order dated 20th January, 2023, Contemnor No. 1 - Mr. Prem Chand Mittal, is present in the Court today. Mr. Pawan Malik, counsel states that although Mr. D.K. Rustagi, counsel earlier representing Contemnor No. 1's has filed a joint reply, however it does not specifically deal with allegations against Contemnor No. 1. He further states that Plaintiff has selectively relied upon the footage of the videography done by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:04.03.2023 13:20:31 the Local Commissioner, at the time of execution of the commission. In order to effectively defend the allegations, Contemnor No. 1 should be provided a copy of the complete videography. He seeks permission of the Court to file a separate reply to the above contempt petition.
2. Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, counsel for Plaintiff states that he has a copy of videography of the commission, as provided by the Local Commissioner, and he shall supply a copy thereof to Mr. Malik.
3. Considering the above, Mr. Chatterjee is directed to provide the un- edited video footage/ video content of the execution of the commission, as provided by the Local Commissioner, to Mr. Malik within one week from today. Contemnor No. 1 is granted four weeks' time from the date of receipt of copy of the videography, to file a reply to the contempt petition.
4. On the next date of hearing, Mr. Prem Chand Mittal shall remain present in Court.
5. Re-notify on 23rd May, 2023.
CS(COMM) 647/2019
6. Mr. Chatterjee further points out that Defendants are continuing to advertise/ list their products on IndiaMART (B2B marketplace) under the impugned packaging and are not using the packaging for which the Court has granted permission vide order dated 20th January, 2022. To this, Mr. Vipul Kr. Sharma, counsel for Defendant No. 1, on instructions, states that Defendant No. 1 is not in the business of manufacturing atta anymore; nonetheless he will take immediate steps to take down the listings on IndiaMART.
7. Mr. Chatterjee further submits that the Local Commissioner had Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:04.03.2023 13:20:31 recovered large quantities of impugned packaging, which has been handed over on superdari to Defendant No. 1 and apprehends that Defendant No. 1 is perhaps still using the same in light of the IndiaMART listing. Defendant No. 1 [Mr. Raj Kumar Mittal] is directed to file an affidavit confirming that packaging, which was seized by Local Commissioner, are lying intact and there has been no pilferage.
8. Re-notify on 17th April, 2023.
SANJEEV NARULA, J MARCH 3, 2023 as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:04.03.2023 13:20:31