Delhi High Court - Orders
Jawed Ansari vs Louis Vuitton Malletier & Ors on 10 April, 2023
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan
$~324
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 65/2023
JAWED ANSARI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kapil Kishore Kaushik, Advocate.
versus
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Pravin Anand with Mr.Dhruv
Anand and Ms.Nimrat Singh,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 10.04.2023
C.M.Nos.16600-16601/2023
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.
FAO(OS) (COMM) No.65/2023Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 6th February, 2023 passed in I.A. No. 15066/2022 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, CPC in C.S (Comm.) No.469/2021, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has found the Appellant guilty of violating the interim injunction order dated 23rd September, 2021 and directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Respondent no. 1 within a period of four weeks, failing which the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.04.2023 17:11:18 Appellant shall have to suffer incarceration in civil prison in Tihar Jail for a period of one week.
Learned counsel for the Appellant states that this Court while deciding contempt application did not consider that the Appellant herein is a small businessman who runs his establishment in a small shop which has been taken on rent and the Appellant has very limited financial resources and is not in the position to pay the huge sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as directed by the Court. He states that the Appellant has offered his unconditional apology for his inadvertent infringement. He further states that the Appellant is the sole bread earner for his family and would suffer irreparable loss if he had to comply with the order dated 6th February, 2023.
Learned counsel for the Respondents, who appears on advance notice, states that the Appellant had continued to breach the injunction order passed by the learned Single Judge for a period of one year approximately. He further states that the Appellant deals with multiple counterfeit goods and in the event the impugned order is interfered with, the piracy movement would receive a boost.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that it is an admitted position that the Appellant sells counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods and had continued to sell them despite an injunction order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the violation of the injunction order is also not in dispute in the present matter.
This Court is in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge that counterfeiting is a serious menace which needs to be dealt with firmly. Consequently, keeping in view the conduct of the Appellant before the learned Single Judge as well as the fact that the impugned order is an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.04.2023 17:11:18 interlocutory order, the present appeal is dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts of the present case, the time to pay the amount of Rs.5 lakhs to Respondent no.1 is extended by four weeks.
MANMOHAN, J SAURABH BANERJEE, J APRIL 10, 2023 KA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.04.2023 17:11:18