Shikanji Private Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Jain

Case Title: Jain Shikanji Private Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Jain

Order Date: 17.09.2025

Case Number: FAO COMM 130/2023

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8248-DB

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Madhu Jain

FACTS

The core dispute revolved around the use of several trademarks involving "Jain Shikanji." Satish Kumar Jain, the respondent, claimed exclusive rights over the trademark "Jain Shikanji." Meanwhile, the appellant company, Jain Shikanji Private Limited, and its Directors were accused of violating earlier ad-interim injunction orders by continuing to use, advertise, and promote goods under deceptively similar trademarks like "Jain Shikanji Restaurant," "Jain Asli," and related variants. This dispute even extended to online references and third-party platforms where the marks appeared.

PROCEDURAL DETAILS

Originally, the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-01, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, passed an order on 03.06.2023 in Suit CS COMM No. 171/2021, allowing Satish Kumar Jain’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This rule deals with consequences for willful disobedience or breach of court injunctions. The Trial Court found Jain Shikanji Private Limited and its Director, Mr. Anubhav Jain, guilty of disobeying the Court’s interim injunction dated 05.11.2022 and sentenced Mr. Anubhav Jain to civil imprisonment for eight weeks. Subsequently, the appellant challenged the order in appeal before the High Court, which partially stayed only the imprisonment direction on 12.06.2023, keeping other directions active.

DISPUTE

The prime contention was whether the appellant and its Director had complied with the court’s injunction and multiple undertakings to stop using the disputed trademarks. Despite assurances and filing affidavits, evidence and complaints showed that the appellant continued GST filings and operated bank and UPI accounts under the name "Jain Shikanji Private Limited" even after the undertakings. Bottled beverages with the allegedly infringing trademarks continued production and sale, both under the older and newly created company names. Additionally, further products using the disputed marks were produced by associated entities such as Hawa Hawai Restaurant Private Limited and Sangria Beverages, all linked to the same family group, despite claims of retirement and non-involvement from certain directors.

DETAILED REASONING AND JUDGMENTS

The High Court exhaustively analyzed the undertakings filed and the steps claimed by the appellant to comply with the orders. It found persistent violations, such as the continued use of the "Jain Shikanji Private Limited" name for banking and payment services long after affidavits claimed the name was changed. The Court noted that only after repeated complaints from the respondent did the appellant take rushed steps to change UPI details, and even then, only post-court directions in August 2025. The packaging produced in Court still featured infringing marks as per the complaints, and there was no credible denial from the appellant. Even new products launched by interrelated or formerly associated group entities bore the contentious trademarks and continued manufacturing claims.

The bench found this conduct amounted to not just violation but to repeated contempt, as affidavits and statements before the Court proved misleading or incomplete. The Judges highlighted that instead of "purging the contempt," the appellant "compounded the same by committing further contempt during the pendency of the present appeal." Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC was squarely invoked, which legally empowers the court to penalize for disobedience of injunction by civil imprisonment or attachment of property.

DECISION

The High Court vacated the interim stay protecting Mr. Anubhav Jain from surrender and ordered compliance with the Trial Court’s punishment by 19.09.2025. All directions from the order dated 03.06.2023 remained operative. The appeal was dismissed, and pending applications were rendered infructuous. Directions for urgent compliance and transmission of orders to the Trial Court were issued to ensure execution.

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested Titles for This Article:

Judicial Stand Against Trademark Contempt: Jain Shikanji Case

Trademark Injunctions and Enforcement: Lessons from Jain Shikanji v. Satish Kumar Jain

Contempt of Court in Trademark Law: A Practical Review

Jain Shikanji Trademark Dispute: How Courts Tackle Repeated Violations

Trademark Rights and Order XXXIX Rule 2A: The Jain Shikanji Litigation