1. This is a petition under sections 11 and 12 of the contempt of court Act 1971 (here in after referred to as the) read with Article 215 of the constitution of India wherein the petitioner has made the following prayer:

It is there fore prayed that this Honble court may be pleased to

(i) direct the contemnor to reveal the identity including full names, and address of his fellow contemnors namely his uncle and the pradhan of the locality and the other men who disrupted the commission proceedings

(ii) hold the contemnors to be in civil contempt of this Honble court and initiate civil contempt proceedings against the contemnors

(iii) punish the contemnors in accordance with law and specifically to order the arrest and detention of the contemnors in prison and to impose a fine on them as provided for under the provisions of the contempt of courts Act, 1971 and the constitution of India

Any further orders as this Honble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case be passed to up hold the sanctity of law.

2. The above prayers of the petitioner is founded on the facts that the petitioner had instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement and dilutions of trade mark passing off damages rendition of accounts delivery up etc. against the defendants in the suit GE Motors India private limited is a company incorporated under the company was originally set up as a joint Venture (JV) company between general Electrice corporation and DLF Universal Limited subsequently DLF Universal Limited became the majority shareholder in the plaintiff company and GE corporation diverted companies its share holding in the plaintiff in the year 2004 to a US based company Regal Beliot which is now majority share holder and plaintiff plaintiff claims to be a leader in the field of manufacturing and selling of fractional Horse power motors of the words class technology design and quality in India the goods of the plaintiff are being sold under the trade marks AUE and COOL HOME in terms of Assignment Deed dated 24th December , 2005 right were assigned by the DLF Universal in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims to be performing extremely well in business and has a reputations in the manufacturing and sale of the goods under the said trade marks it is a stated that in April , 2005 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant Mr. Mukesh Kumar trading as baghel Electricals operating from WZ 187 Basai Darapur Opposite ESI Gate New delhi was selling supplying distributing and manufacturing infringing counterfeit plaintiff water cooler pumps under the trade marks AUE and COOL HOME and the trade name of the plaintiff "GE Motors" without any authorisation or permission and as such the suit for the injunction and other reliefs was filed in this Court. When the suit came up for hearing before the Court on 31st May, 2005, the court passed an order injuncting the defendant in the following order:-

"IA 4691/2005

Heard. Allowed subject to just exceptions.

CS(OS) 840/2005

Register. Issue summons by ordinary process, registered AD and through approved courier returnable by 2nd September, 2005.

IA 4689/2005 & 4690/2005

I have heard Mr. Anand, Iearned cot A for plaintiff in support of the prayer made in these applications for ad interim ex-parte injunction and for appointment of a Court Commissioner to take the infringing goods into custody and to return the same to the defendant on Superdari.

The plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint is that the plaintiff is a leader in India in the field of manufacturing and selling of Fractional House Power (FHP) motors of world-class technology, design and quality. The plaintiff claims to have served the white goods market by manufacturing high quality motors which are used for heating, air-conditioning, refrigeration, washing machine and wet grinder applications. The products manufactured by the plaintiffs company are marketed under trade mark AUE and Cool Home in terms of a deed of assignment executed between DLF Universal Ltd. and the plaintiff. All rights, titles and interest to the trade mark AUE and Cool Home are vested in the plaintiff. The plaintiffs further case is that the entire spectrum of the diversified business activities as set out in the plaint are conducted under the trademark AUE and Cool Home. The trademarks AUE and Cool Home are, as per the averments made in the plaint, registered under different registration numbers in classes 11 and 7. Apart from the registration already obtained there are some other applications pending consideration before the concerned authorities.

The plaintiffs grievance now is that it came to know about the activities of the defendant in the month of April, 2005. The defendant, it appears, is trading as Baghel Electricals from WZ-187, Basai Dara Pur, Opposite ESI Gate, New Delhi and is said to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, supplying, distributing and selling infringing counterfeit plaintiffs water cooler pumps under the trademarks AUE and Cool Home with the plaintiffs trade name GE Motors affixed on the same without nay authorisation or permission what so ever. The plaintiff also claims to have conducted an investigation into the activities of the defendant and verified the truth about its activities. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is manufacturing arid selling counterfeit GE Motor Water Cooler Pumps under the trademarks AUE and Cool Home which counterfeit products are distinctively different from the genuine pumps manufactured by the plaintiff.

The plaint sets out the distinguishing features in an attempt to show how the genuine product is to be or can be identified or distinguished from the fake products of the defendant. It is in the above background that the plaintiff claims infringement of the trademark and the trade name by the defendant and has sought an injunction against the defendant restraining it from passing off its goods for those of the plaintiffs and for damages and accounts etc.

In the accompanying application, the plaintiff has, inter alia pointed out that unless a Court Commissioner is appointed to inspect the stocks of the defendant and to seize the counterfeit products, the entire activity of selling counterfeit products and passing off the goods manufactured by the defendant as those of the plaintiffs would continue on unabated causing irreparable injury and loss to the plaintiff.

Having given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar, I am of the view that a prima facie case for the grant of an ad interim ex-parte injunction has been made out. I accordingly direct that the defendant shall not, pending further orders from this Court, manufacture, sell or offer for sale either itself or through its agents water cooler pumps and motors under the trade marks AUE and Cool Home with or without the trade name GE Motor India Ltd. affixed on the same. This order shall not, however, prevent the defendant from selling genuine goods manufactured by the plaintiff company or carrying on his business in the sale and purchase of the said goods as heretofore.

I appoint Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate, B-3/52B, Lawrence Road (Keshav Puram) Delhi-35, cell No. 9810472702 as a Court Commissioner with the direction that he shall visit the premises of the defendant identified in para 6 of the application or at any other place where the said goods manufactured by the plaintiff should be found to be stored, inspect and identify the motor water cooler pumps and counterfeit GE Motors metal strips/labels bearing the mark AUE and Cool Home as manufactured/supplied and sold by the defendant with the help of the representative of the plaintiff and prepare an inventory of the same and to determine if they are counterfeit/infringing version of the plaintiffs product. The Local Commissioner shall seize and seal the counterfeit motor water cooler pumps and place the same on Superdari of the defendant. The Commissioners fee is fixed at Rs. 15, 000/- tentatively besides incidental ex-penses which the plaintiff company shall bear. IA 4690/2005 is allowed. Compliance with proviso to. Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within 7 days." 3. Vide the same order, Court also appointed Shri Chander Shekhar, Advocate, as a Court Commissioner with the direction that he shall visit the premises of the defendant identified in para 6 of the application or at any other place where the said goods manufactured by the plaintiff should be found to be stored, inspect and identify the motor water cooler pumps and counterfeit GE Motors metal strips/labels, prepare an inventory, seize and seal the counterfeit motor water cooler pumps and place the same on superdari of the defendant. In compliance to the said order the local commissioner accompanied by Mr. Keshav S. Dhakad, Mr.Munish Mehra, Advocates, Mr. Deep De, Quality Control Engineer of the plaintiff along with other people visited the premises of the respondents herein. Upon reaching the premises of the respondent at about 3.00pm, the local commissioner and the team accompanying him, found one person present in the shop who introduced himself as Mukesh Kumar. He was proprietor of the shop and was into the business of selling water cooler. A copy of the order passed by the Court was handed over to him for his perusal by the local commissioner thereafter the local commissioner commenced the search and inspection of the shop. During search, a total of 79 counterfeit water cooler pumps of the petitioner-company were discovered inside the said premises bearing the marks AUE and COOL HOME. The inspection further led to the discovery of around 1000 pieces of such material and as well as bearing the trade mark "GE Motors India Ltd." These were identified by the Quality Control Manager of the plaintiff. These material was seized and sealed. During this proceeding one person came inside the shop and upon being enquired as to his identity by the local commissioner, he refused to divulge his name and introduced himself as Mukesh Kumars uncle and owner of the property. The purpose of the commission as well as direction of the Court were explained to him, but he acted in a very unreasonable manner. The said uncle of the Mukesh Kumar walked outside the premises and he started gathering the people from the neighbouring houses and adjoining shops, all around the contemnors premises where the commission was taking place. He also made some phone calls and he asked Mukesh Kumar to walk out of the shop. When Mukesh Kumar was asked to sign the proceedings, he refused, saying that his relatives and local Union Leaders were arriving at the location in few minutes and he would not sign the proceedings. Further in this application, the applicant has made the following allegations:-

"Forceful Barging of the contemnors:

"10. As the Local Commissioner then proceeded to prepare the superdari nama, at around 3.50pm, suddenly the Pradhan of the locality along with Mr. Kumars Uncle and three to four other people barged forcefully into the shop and immediately started shouting dirty abuses and threatened the Local Commissioner and his team to leave the premises.

Beginning of the Physical Assault:

11. The abovementioned persons did not give the Local Commissioner any chance to reason with them and started a physical assault and battery on the Local Commissioner and his team, which was present inside the premises, by using their fists indiscriminately on everyone. By this time a crowd of at least 50-60 people had gathered outside the shop in support of these men in an effort to create intimidation.

Physical Assault of a Dangerous Level:

12. During the said physical assault and battery, which continued for around 5-10 minutes, the Local Commissioner along with Mr. Keshav S. Dhakad and Mr.Munish Mehra were physically assaulted numerous times and the assault was escalated to a dangerous level when the Pradhan, the Contemnors uncle and his men picked up bases of the ceiling fans, bases of the motor pumps and rods of the pedestal fans kept inside the premises of the Contemnor, and threatened to inflict grievous bodily harm on the Local Commissioner and his team.

Forfeful dragging and Pushing of the Local Commissioner and his Team:

13. The Local Commissioner and his team were then physically pulled and pushed outside the premises of the Contemnor and onto the street.

Snatching and tearing of the on-the-spot proceedings report:

14. In the ensuring scuffle, the Pradhan, the Contemnors uncle and his men also snatched the on-the-spot-proceedings report from the Local Commissioners hands and tore it off immediately.

Snatching and tearing of the original order of this Honble Court;

15. The contemnors also grabbed the original copy of the Honble Courts order and tore in into pieces, shouting abusive language in total disrespect to the orders of the Honble Court.

Tearing and throwing of the seized goods:

16. Threafter the Contemnor, the Contemnors uncle, the Pradhan and his men proceeded to tear apart the sealed bags containing the seized counterfeit water cooler pumps and threw the sealed contents out on the street. At that point, the Local Commissioner and other members of his team ran in different directions in a desperate effort to avoid being managed to escape from the said location and ran in different directions so as to avoid being further assaulted or physically harmed.

Chasing the Local Commissioner and his Team on the streets:

17. The Pradhan, the Contemnors uncle and others did not stop at that but also chased the Local Commissioner and his team on the streets for a consider able distance with rods, pumps etc. raised in their hands. Fortunately, the Local Commissioner and his team managed to escape from the locality by running in various directions, gathered at a safe location after some time and boarded their vehicle and immediately left the area after ensuring everyones presence. A physical description of the Contemnor, Mr.Mukesh Kumar, the Pradhan and the Contemnors Uncle has been annexed with the local commissioner report which has been filed in the present proceedings.

18. As a result of said disruption and the subsequent vicious assault on the commission team, the Local Commissioner was unable to file the on-the-spot proceedings report in the present proceedings as the same was torn apart by the Contemnor and his men while the superdari nama, could not be prepared due to the verbal and physical invervention of the contemnor, the Pradhan, the Contemnors uncle and their men."

3. On the basis of above averments, it is further stated in the petition that the respondent as well as other persons have willfully obstructed and physically assaulted the local commissioner from executing the commission and thereby shown blatant disregard to the orders of the Court. In fact, it is stated that the very basic rule of law as imposed in a civil society has been assaulted by the law of jungle. This application is supported by the affidavit of constituted attorney of the plaintiff. The commissioner also filed his report dated 3rd June, 2005 in Court. From the report of the local commissioner, the following relevant extract can usefully be referred, at this stage:-

"The said person then walked out of the premises and I noticed that he started to gather people from the neighbouring houses and shops just outside the defendants premises, where the commission was taking place and started making phone calls. He even asked the defendant to walk out of the premises.

6. At around 3.45 pm I had finished my on-the-spot report and explained the contents to Mr.Mukesh Kumar. I then asked him to sign the on-the-spot report on the last page but he refused on the ground that his relatives and local union leaders are coming to the location in few minutes and unless they arrive he will not sign any document. I then made a noting on the report that the defendant refused to sign the commission proceeding report. However, by that time the packing and sealing of the seized counterfeit water cooler pumps and metal strips was on the verge of getting completed. The time was approximately 3.50pm.

7. As I was about to begin the preparation of the superdari nama, aty 3.50 pm the Pradhan of the locality along with Mr. Kumars Uncle and three to four other people just walked inside the premises where I was sitting and started hurling dirty abuses and asked us to immediately leave the premises. When we tried to reason out they immediately started a physical assault and battery on the team and myself and started to hit everyone present inside the shop indiscriminately. By that time a crowd of at least 50-60 had already gathered outside the shop and blocked me and my team from leaving. During the said physical assault and battery, Mr. Keshav S.Dhakad, Mr.Munish Mehra and myself were hit by hands numerous times. During the said assault, Pradhan, defendants uncle and his men also tried hitting us with the bases of the ceiling fans, base of the motor pumps and rods of the pedestal fans and threatened us with dire consequences if we didnt leave the premises of the defendant, all the while hurling abuses at us. Then we were physically dragged and pushed outside the premises of the defendant. Then the Pradhan, defendants uncle and his men snatched the on-the-spot report from my hands along with the original copy of the Honble Court and tore them into pieces, again hurling dirty abuses in disrespect to the Court.

8. Thereafter they broke open the sealed bags and threw its contents out on the market street outside the premises of the defendant. At this point myself and other members of the team barely managed to escape from the said location and ran to different directions to avoid being hit further. However, Pradhan, defendants uncle and his men continued to chase us for a considerable distance with rods etc, , in their hands. When we all manged to escape from the locality and gathered to a common and safe location to board our motor vehicle, it was around 4.30 pm. A description of Mr.Mukesh Kumar, defendant, Mr. Pradhan and Mr. Kumars uncle is annexed marked Annexure-C,

9. Due to the above disruption and assault on the commission team I am unable to present the on-the-spot proceedings report which was torn apart, as well as the superdari nama, which I never got a chance to prepare and complete due to the physical intervention of the Pradhan, defendants uncle and his men, as described above in the present report. We all left the location at around 4.35 pm after everyone could reach the same location."

4. There was a specific prayer in this application that the contemnor Mukesh Kumar should be directed to disclose the names of the other persons who were present at the time of execution of the commission and had obstructed the proceedings of the commission as well as had shown complete disregard to the orders of the Court. The presence of Mr.Mukesh Kumar could not be secured before the Court until non-bailable warrants for his production in the Court were issued and the SHO of the concerned police station was directed to be present in Court in terms of the order dated 7th July, 2005. On 11th July, 2005, the SHO had informed the Court that the warrants could not be executed as Mukesh Kumar was not available at the address given and despite best efforts by the police, he could not be produced in Court. However, the uncle Mukesh Kumar who was present in Court was directed to appear on the next date of hearing as well. Mukesh Kumar was brought before the Court by execution of a non-bailable warrants on 18th July, 2005. On that date, Mukesh Kumar was thus ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond with one surety to the extent of Rs.25, 000/- to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court. However, the SHO had informed that there was no Pardhan of the market or the village, but certain other persons who, according to him, were present at the time of execution of the commission were produced before the Court. Out of them, one Mr. Manoj Kumar was present in Court, was identified by. The Commissioner as well as the counsel appearing for the petitioner, who had obstructed the commission proceedings. Consequently, Mukesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar both were put on notice and learned counsel appearing on their behalf had prayed for time to file reply to the application and the notice issued by the Court. On the adjourned date contemnors were present in Court and the counsel appearing on their behalf prayed for adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel was out of station. Though there was hardly any justification, but in the interest of justice adjournment was granted to them.

5. In the reply filed by the respondents, they have completely denied the incident and it is stated that the persons who came for inspection were very rude and harassed Mukesh Kumar. They did not show the order of the Court. It is denied that persons had gathered at the instance of Manoj Kumar and Mukesh Kumar and that they ever refused to sign the proceedings. It is also denied that the local commissioner or his team was forcibly dragged or that the report prepared by the commissioner was snatched and torn. They prayed for dismissal of the application, however, in the opening paragraph of this affidavit, it was stated "at the outset this poor innocent and aggrieved victim who is alleged contemnor in this petition tender unconditional apology but feels necessary to explain the brief facts before the Court." The reply of the contemnor completely denies the entire incident and states that they are law abiding persons and had not obstructed the commission proceedings in any manner whatsoever. The averments made in the petition which are not only supported by the affidavit of the petitioner but is also supported fully by the report of the local commissioner, according to which the respondents-contemnors had obstructed the commission proceedings, shown insult to the commissioner and the lawyers present there, as well as had shown complete disregard to the orders of the Court and as such had interferred in the administration of justice. The allegations of assault by Manoj Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and the other persons on the commissioner including non-compliance of the courts order and obstructing the commissions proceedings are the acts of high handedness and such seriousness, that they cannot be ignored by the Court. The averments at least prima facie show that the respondents have not only interferred with the commissions proceedings but have interferred with the administration of justice intentionally and with an intent of bringing the majesty of law to disrepute. The averments made therein clearly constitutes a criminal contempt. The acts committed by the respondents are not mere disobedience of order of the Court which could be remedied by getting the order enforced at a subsequent stage or awarding some minor punishment under the civil contempt. The intention of a civil contempt normally is to enforce an order or an undertaking as given to the Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union, 1970 AIR (SC) 1767 (referred) made the observation in this regard. It is the seriousness of the irresponsible acts of the contemnors and the degree of harm caused to the administration of justice, which would decisively determine whether the matter should be tried as a civil or a criminal contempt. It is not necessary in the present case to decipher the scope of criminal contempt from civil contempt, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Suffice it to note that there is willful disobedience of the orders of the Court by the respondents coupled with irresponsible acts of rebellion of defiance to interfere with the administration of justice ex facie amounts to acts of criminal contempt. Not only this, the respondents persisted in the unprovoked behaviour in assaulting the Commissioner as well as other counsel (who normally are the officers of the Court) and showed complete disregard to the courts order and the commission proceedings. These acts are gross contempt of courts and it would be travesty of justice if the courts were to allow gross contempt of court to go unpunished without an adequate sentence. At least at this stage, there are no mitigating circumstances which would persuade the court to take any lenient view in this regard. One who commits offences like the present one should normally be aware of its consequences. One who tenders an apology would normally not rendering any justification for such acts or in fact deny the Court of Contempt proceedings. There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the contents of the application as supported by the report of the Commissioner can be disbelieved or may not be factually correct. In any case, tendering of apology is a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of offence by a contemnor. It is not intended to operate as a universal panacea to frustrate the action in law, but the fundamental principle is that rule of law and dignity of court must prevail. An apology tendered even at the outset has to be bonafide, should be demonstrative of repentance and sincere regret on the part of the contemnor, lest the administration of justice is crudely interfered with immunity by a person like the respondents. The Court will check and punish the guilty in accordance with law at the appropriate stage as none is above law. The basic ingredients of rule of law have to be enforced whatever be the consequences. An apology which lacks bonafide and is intended to truncate the process of law with ulterior motive of escaping the likely consequences of such flagrant violation of the orders of the Court and disrespect to the administration of justice cannot be permitted. In the case of Prem Soran, Addl. Munsif v. Judicial Magistrate 6 JT 194 (referred) the Supreme Court sternly came on a contemnor who had slapped the Presiding Officer holding that "it was in fact a slap on the face of justice delivering system and as such no question of accepting any apology would arise nor any leniency called for". Reference can also be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Court on its Own Motion v. Ranjit Bajaj (CM No. 15886 of 2000 in CW 7639/1995), decided on 30th April, where the Court held as under:-

"A Division Bench of this Court in the case of (contemner) Ranjit Baja (in civil Misc. No. 15886 of 2000 in Civil Writ Petition No. 7639 of 1995) decided on 30th April, 2003 held as under:-

"in other words, the Courts have to derive a balance by reasoning of preferential view between the opportunity to reform and or inflictment of punishment forthwith, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. A beneficial legislation obviously is not punitive and requires liberal construction. To us, it appears that essence of this reformative procedure is to release the person on probation as in alternative to or in lieu of the sentence/punishment

18.4 The maxim "Justitia est duplex" severe puniens , et praevenniens" by its very virtue imposes dual obligation upon the Courts of considering various facets of severe punishment on one hand and really or efficiently preventing recourse of crime on the other, with object of maintaining dignity of law. The settled principles of law also indicate that there is a duty upon the courts to remove the cause of litigation. In other words, while providing opportunity to the contemner to reform himself the Court also thereby expects that he would not indulge in such activities and repeat the offence of disobedience of courts order."

In the case of Chanchal Manohar Singh Versus High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others 1998 (8) Supreme Court cases 481 (referred), indicating the caution that must be applied by the reports of different newspapers, particularly in the field of law, finding the reporter guilty of contempt still accepted the apology as it was made at the outset and no explanation was rendered for the mistake."

6. Besides willful disobedience of order of the Court by the respondents, it is a clear case of obstructing administration of justice with impunity and lowering the majesty of law. If the respondents take law into their hands and after partially participating in the commission proceedings, it could assault the commissioner, counsel appearing for the party and also tare the order of the Court or commission proceedings as alleged. There cannot be a case of civil contempt viewed from any accepted precept of law of contempt. Taking an overall view of the matter it leaves no doubt in my mind that the conduct of the respondent-contemnors is contemptuous, deliberate and willful which attracts proceedings for a criminal contempt against the said respondents. The conduct of the respondents even before the Court deserved to be deprecated and their apology in face of their complete denial in the reply affidavit filed lacks bonafides, sincerity and is again an attempt to overreach the process of law.

7. Prima facie, I am satisfied that the respondents have committed criminal contempt of court and thus I direct that the matter be laid before a Division Bench, subject to and after obtaining orders from Honble theing Chief Justice, on 19.9.2005 when the respondents-contemnors should also be present in Court.