Manipal group trademark infringement case: Karnataka High Court issues guidelines on imprisonment in civil cases

The Karnataka High Court recently issued illustrative guidelines on when courts may pass orders for imprisonment in civil cases (civil imprisonment) where there is willful disobedience of civil court orders [T Sudhakar Pai and ors. v. M/s Manipal Academy of Higher Education and ors.]..In the judgment passed last week, the bench of Justices Alok Radhe and Anant Ramanth Hegde observed that under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), civil courts have the discretion to attach a defendant’s property or order civil imprisonment or order both simultaneously when there is willful disobedience of court orders..The High Court also clarified it is not necessary for a civil court to order attachment and sale of property before ordering civil imprisonment..“While ordering civil imprisonment, the court should bear in mind the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, it does not mean that the punishment by way of civil imprisonment is ruled out and can be ordered only after exhausting the option of attachment and sale of the property,” the Court said.The Court was deciding on a trademark infringement case initiated by the two entities of the Manipal group..Pertinently, the Court added that an order for civil imprisonment should not be passed “as a matter of course” and issued the following non-exhaustive criteria to for courts to examine while deciding whether an order of civil imprisonment should be issued:(a) the nature/gravity of the disobedience or breach, and the manner in which order is violated;(b) the loss caused to the party on account of disobedience or breach;(c) whether the damage caused can be restored in some way or the other or is something irreversible;(d) circumstances under which the breach or disobedience is committed;(e) whether the breach or disobedience complained is an isolated act or it is a continuous act;(f) previous history, if any, where the contemnor is held guilty of breach or disobedience of the Court order;(g) whether the case calls for a situation where the message is to be sent, by passing an order of civil imprisonment, that willful breach or disobedience of the Court order will be viewed seriously;(h) whether civil imprisonment is an effective way to prevent a further breach;(i) the timing of the apology if any, tendered by the contemnor, the tenor and tone of the language used in the affidavit tendering the apology;(j) the compliance if any, made to undo the disobedience or breach complained;(k) to an extent, the educational qualifications/ positions of the contemnor and whether the acts committed by the contemnor make mockery of the Court order..The Court added that all the above criteria need not be satisfied before ordering an attachment of property or directing the civil imprisonment of the contemnor..The Court commented that the reason why civil imprisonment is ordered is so that no one carries an impression that there would be no consequences for disobeying court orders. The provision enabling civil imprisonment has a very important role to play in upholding the rule of law, the majesty of the Court, and ensuring the credibility of a court order, the bench underscored. “The binding Order of the Court must be obeyed not only with a sense of respect and duty but also with a sense of responsibility, and not just with a sense of subordination," the Court said..The case before the Court arose from a 2019 civil suit filed by the Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE Trust) and the Manipal Academy of Higher Education (a deemed university) for trademark infringement. A commercial court passed an interim injunction order in favour of the MAHE Trust and the Manipal Academy in 2019.This interim order was made absolute in 2022 when an Additional District and Sessions Court in Bengaluru ruled against the persons using the names Manipal Academy of Health and Science (who also used the acronym MAHE) and the the Manipal International School. Later, the court convicted these persons for the willful disobedience of the injunction orders.As punishment, T Sudhakar Pai, the school's chairman, was ordered to undergo three months of imprisonment while the school's CEO and president were directed to be imprisoned for a month. Further, the commercial court also slapped a fine on these parties.This order was challenged before the High Court, which upheld the conviction for willful disobedience of a court order, but modified the civil imprisonment sentences imposed by the commercial court.The three-month sentence imposed on the school’s chairman, Pai was reduced to jail time for fifteen days. The one month imprisonment sentence imposed on two others was set aside.The High Court also found that the commercial court had erred in ordering the errant parties to pay a fine right away, without first waiting for some time to elapse after the attachment of their property so that the parties may comply with the court’s order.The Court proceeded to order that the properties of these parties be attached for six months.If the disobedience of court orders continues even after these six months, then the attached properties can be sold and compensation can be paid to the Manipal group, the Court said.The compensation to be so paid would be ₹1 lakh by the chairman of the school and ₹ 50,000 each by the other errant parties, the Court’s order said..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.