Jain Shikanji Pvt. Ltd. Vs Satish Kumar

**This is a recent judgment from the Delhi High Court dated 02 July 2026.**

### Case Summary

- **Case Number**: CM(M)-IPD 36/2026 (a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

- **Parties**: Jain Shikanji Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner/Defendant in the main suit) vs. Satish Kumar Jain (Respondent/Plaintiff)

- **Judge**: Justice Jyoti Singh

- **Core Issue**: Contempt of court proceedings for willful disobedience of an interim injunction order in a **trademark infringement and passing off** suit involving the mark **"JAIN SHIKANJI"**.

### Background (in simple terms)

The Respondent (Satish Kumar Jain) owns the trademark "JAIN SHIKANJI" and filed a commercial suit against the Petitioner company for trademark infringement and passing off. In November 2022, the Trial Court granted an **interim injunction** restraining the Petitioner from using the mark "JAIN SHIKANJI" or any deceptively similar mark.

The Petitioner (through its Director, Mr. Anubhav Jain) was accused of violating this injunction. The Trial Court found **willful disobedience**, held Mr. Anubhav Jain guilty under **Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC**, and ordered:

- Attachment of properties for 6 months.

- Civil imprisonment for 8 weeks.

- He was directed to surrender before the court.

Multiple appeals and proceedings followed:

- Division Bench of Delhi High Court upheld the contempt order in September 2025.

- Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn.

- Review Petition was also withdrawn.

Despite repeated directions to surrender and appear, Mr. Anubhav Jain allegedly absconded and did not comply. The Trial Court then issued fresh arrest warrants, attachment orders, and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs via the order dated 01.06.2026.

### What the High Court Decided

The High Court **dismissed the petition** challenging the Trial Court’s order. Key observations:

- Mr. Anubhav Jain showed complete defiance of court orders and made a "mockery of law."

- His unconditional apology was not accepted due to his conduct (absconding, filing false undertakings, continued violation).

- The court upheld the warrants of arrest and attachment of properties.

- However, on a limited prayer by the Petitioner, the **exemplary cost was reduced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs**, to be paid within two weeks.

### Significance

This judgment reinforces the principle that **willful disobedience of court orders**, especially in intellectual property (trademark) matters, will be dealt with strictly. Courts will not easily accept apologies when there is a pattern of defiance and delay tactics. It also shows that while civil contempt can lead to imprisonment and property attachment, some leniency (like cost reduction) may be shown in exceptional situations.

Introduction

Trademark disputes often involve not just competing business interests but also the authority of courts to enforce their orders. The Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 02 July 2026 in Jain Shikanji Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Jain highlights the serious consequences of willfully disobeying court injunctions in intellectual property matters. 

In this case, a company and its director faced contempt proceedings for continuing to use a similar trademark despite a clear injunction. The ruling is significant for businesses, trademark owners, legal practitioners, and litigants as it demonstrates the judiciary’s firm stance against parties who flout court orders through evasion or delay tactics. It serves as a strong reminder that apologies alone may not suffice when there is repeated defiance, while also balancing justice with limited relief in appropriate cases. The decision strengthens the rule of law in commercial and IP litigation.

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute began when Satish Kumar Jain filed a commercial suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against trademark infringement and passing off for his mark “JAIN SHIKANJI / JAIN SHIKANJI PVT. LTD.” Jain Shikanji Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in November 2019, was the defendant in the suit.

On 05 November 2022, the Trial Court (Commercial Court) granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant company from using the mark “JAIN SHIKANJI” or any deceptively similar mark. The defendant’s appeal against this order was dismissed by the High Court on 01 March 2023.

Despite the injunction, the plaintiff alleged continued violation. After issuing a notice and receiving a reply, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC for contempt. On 03 June 2023, the Trial Court held the company’s Director, Mr. Anubhav Jain, guilty of willful disobedience. It ordered attachment of properties for six months and civil imprisonment for eight weeks, directing him to surrender within 15 days.

The defendant challenged this before the High Court. While an initial stay on surrender was granted, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on 17 September 2025, upheld the contempt findings, and directed surrender. A Special Leave Petition and Review Petition before the Supreme Court and High Court were withdrawn. 

Mr. Anubhav Jain did not surrender and allegedly remained untraceable. He later filed an application with an unconditional apology affidavit. The Trial Court rejected it on 01 June 2026, issued fresh warrants, and imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs. The present petition under Article 227 challenged this order.

Dispute Before the Court

The main issue was whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the unconditional apology and issuing fresh warrants of arrest, attachment of properties, and costs for continued disobedience. 

The petitioner argued that Mr. Anubhav Jain intended to comply, his non-appearance was unintentional and due to stress, and he should have been allowed to appear via video conferencing. They sought setting aside of the coercive directions and acceptance of the apology.

The respondent contended that the petitioner’s conduct showed deliberate defiance, repeated violations, and attempts to mislead the court. The orders of the Trial Court and Division Bench had already been upheld, leaving no scope for interference.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The High Court examined the entire chronology and found no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order. It relied on the principle that contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC are meant to uphold the dignity of the court and ensure compliance with injunctions, especially in ongoing commercial suits.

The Court noted serious observations from earlier judgments: the defendant had willfully violated the injunction, given false undertakings, and continued business under the disputed mark. Despite multiple opportunities and directions from the Trial Court and Division Bench to surrender and purge the contempt, Mr. Anubhav Jain absconded and failed to appear even when the matter was passed over.

The Court rejected the plea of stress as a valid excuse for non-compliance with judicial orders. It also addressed the video conferencing request, observing that while permissible in normal circumstances, it was not acceptable when higher courts had specifically directed physical surrender to enforce punishment. The petitioner could not selectively choose the mode of appearance while defying the substance of the orders.

The judgment emphasizes that unconditional apologies must be bona fide and backed by genuine remorse and compliance. Here, the conduct showed the opposite—an attitude of defiance. However, considering the petitioner’s request during arguments, the Court exercised discretion to reduce the exemplary costs from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs, payable within two weeks.

Final Decision of the Court

The High Court dismissed the petition under Article 227. It upheld the Trial Court’s order dated 01 June 2026, including fresh warrants of arrest and attachment of properties. The exemplary costs were reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs, to be paid to the respondent within two weeks. The petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.

Point of Law Settled

This judgment reaffirms that willful disobedience of court orders in trademark and commercial matters attracts strict consequences, including civil imprisonment and property attachment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. It clarifies that mere filing of an unconditional apology is insufficient if the contemnor shows continued defiance, evasion, or lack of genuine remorse. Courts can reject such apologies and enforce coercive measures. At the same time, it shows limited judicial discretion to modify ancillary directions like costs when parties show willingness to comply at the appellate stage. The ruling will guide future contempt cases, discouraging delay tactics and reinforcing respect for judicial authority in IP litigation.

Title of the Case: Jain Shikanji Pvt. Ltd. Vs Satish Kumar Jain  

Date of Judgment/Order:02 July 2026  

Case Number:CM(M)-IPD 36/2026  

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5323

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi  

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Jyoti Singh, J.

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

Disclaimer:Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

**Suggested SEO Titles:**  

1. Delhi High Court Upholds Contempt Order in Jain Shikanji Trademark Dispute  

2. Willful Disobedience of Injunction: Key Lessons from Jain Shikanji Judgment  

3. Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC: Delhi High Court on Unconditional Apology in Contempt  

4. Consequences of Flouting Court Orders in Trademark Cases: 2026 Ruling  

5. Civil Imprisonment and Property Attachment for Trademark Violation Upheld  

6. Article 227 Petition Dismissed: Delhi HC on Defiance of Injunction Orders  

7. Jain Shikanji Pvt Ltd vs Satish Kumar Jain: Contempt and Compliance Explained  

8. When is an Unconditional Apology Not Accepted by Courts? IP Case Analysis  

9. Exemplary Costs Reduced in Contempt Matter: Delhi High Court Balance  

10. Trademark Infringement Contempt: Strict Approach by Delhi High Court  

**Suggested SEO Tags:**  

Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, civil contempt, trademark injunction violation, unconditional apology, Delhi High Court judgment 2026, Jain Shikanji case, willful disobedience, property attachment, civil imprisonment, Article 227 petition, trademark passing off, commercial court order, IP litigation contempt, court defiance consequences, exemplary costs, Mr Anubhav Jain, trademark infringement suit, Division Bench observations, surrender directions, video conferencing in contempt, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

**Headnote of the Judgment:**  

In Jain Shikanji Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Jain, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 challenging the Trial Court’s order in contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. The Court upheld findings of willful disobedience of the trademark injunction order by the petitioner’s Director, Mr. Anubhav Jain, including fresh arrest warrants and property attachment. Noting repeated defiance and lack of genuine remorse, the unconditional apology was rejected. However, exemplary costs were reduced from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.3 lakhs. The petition was dismissed with the modification on costs. (Word count: 98)