The case of ITC Limited vs. Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors. concerns trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and copyright violations by the Defendants, who allegedly copied the packaging of ITC's 'AASHIRVAAD' Atta. The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the Defendants from using deceptively similar trade dress and branding. The Court had earlier issued an ad interim injunction on November 28, 2019 to prevent the Defendants from continuing the infringement.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs filed a contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the Defendants deliberately disobeyed the injunction order and engaged in obstructive and contemptuous conduct during the enforcement of the Court's directives.

Plaintiff:

• ITC Limited is a leading Indian conglomerate engaged in multiple sectors, including Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), hotels, paperboards, and packaging.
• Manufacturer of 'AASHIRVAAD' branded wheat flour (atta), which has distinctive packaging.

Defendants:

• Raj Kumar Mittal (Defendant No.1)
• Prem Chand Mittal (Defendant No.2)
• Both Defendants were running a business under Mittal Sales/Mittal Trading Company and were accused of selling wheat flour in deceptively similar packaging.

Key Allegations:

• The Defendants were selling wheat flour using packaging identical to 'AASHIRVAAD' Atta, thereby infringing ITC's trademark and trade dress.
• The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction on November 28, 2019, prohibiting the Defendants from continuing the infringement.
• Local Commissioners were appointed to visit the Defendants' premises and execute the order.

Execution of Injunction Order:

• On December 7, 2019, a Local Commissioner, Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocate, visited the Gurugram premises of Raj Kumar Mittal to seize infringing materials.
• Prem Chand Mittal obstructed the execution of the order by:
  • Refusing to accept service of the Court's order and the plaint.
  • Directing workers to shut down the premises and lock the doors.
  • Physically obstructing and misbehaving with the Local Commissioner.
  • Engaging in altercations and assaulting the legal team.
  • Tampering with evidence and preventing access to infringing materials.

Initiation of Contempt Proceedings:

• ITC Limited filed a contempt petition on February 28, 2020, against the Defendants for:
  • Wilful disobedience of the injunction order.
  • Obstructing the Local Commissioner and tampering with evidence.
• Court repeatedly directed the Defendants to clarify discrepancies in their statements and explain missing infringing goods.
• Bailable warrants were issued against Raj Kumar Mittal due to his non-appearance.
• Both Defendants gave inconsistent statements, shifting blame to a third brother, Radhey Shyam Mittal, who was not a party to the suit.

Plaintiff's Submissions:

• Deliberate Disobedience of Court Orders: The Defendants knowingly violated the injunction order and continued their infringing activities.
• Tampering with Seized Evidence: Despite the seizure of infringing goods, large quantities went missing. The Defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation.
• Obstruction and Assault on Local Commissioner: The Defendants engaged in physical fights, manhandling, and intimidation of the Local Commissioner and ITC representatives.
• Inconsistent & Misleading Statements: The Defendants repeatedly changed their stance on the missing infringing materials.

Defendants' Submissions:

• The Defendants offered an unconditional apology for any misconduct.
• Claimed that any missing infringing materials were taken by their brother, Radhey Shyam Mittal.
• Denial of Tampering Allegations: Claimed they never obstructed the proceedings and alleged bias by the Local Commissioner.
• Allegations of Misconduct Against Local Commissioner: Prem Chand Mittal accused the Local Commissioner of conniving with ITC, but later retracted these allegations.

Discussion on Judgments & Cited Cases:

Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1139):

• Key Legal Principles:
  • Contempt is meant to protect the administration of justice, not the dignity of a judge.
  • Any deliberate interference with the judicial process is punishable.
  • Civil contempt requires wilful disobedience to a court's order.
• Application in ITC Limited Case: The Court found that the Defendants obstructed the execution of the order, misled the Court, and tampered with evidence, thus meeting the criteria for civil contempt.

Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd. (1988) 4 SCC 592:

• Key Legal Principles:
  • Judicial decisions should not be pre-empted or circumvented by external actions.
  • Any action that interferes with the fair dispensation of justice constitutes contempt.
  • Free speech must not obstruct court proceedings.
• Application in ITC Limited Case: The Court cited this judgment to emphasize that the Defendants' obstruction of the Local Commissioner and destruction of evidence was a direct interference with the judicial process.

Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai (2008) 14 SCC 561:

• Key Legal Principles:
  • There must be an order, judgment, or decree of the Court.
  • The person must have knowledge of the order.
  • There must be wilful disobedience of the order.
• Application in ITC Limited Case: The Court found that the Defendants had full knowledge of the injunction order and wilfully disobeyed it.

Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307:

• Key Legal Principles:
  • Since contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal, courts should act with caution and ensure strong evidence.
  • If there is any ambiguity, the contemnor should be given the benefit of the doubt.
• Application in ITC Limited Case: The Court opted for monetary penalties instead of imprisonment due to the Defendants' eventual apology.

Reasoning of the Judge:

• Hon'ble Justice Amit Bansal found the Defendants guilty of contempt for:
  • Repeatedly defying Court orders and engaging in deceptive practices.
  • Misbehaving with Court officers and obstructing the enforcement of the injunction.
  • Providing contradictory explanations regarding missing infringing materials.
  • Failing to show remorse until later in the proceedings.
• However, considering the Defendants' eventual unconditional apology, the Court opted for monetary penalties instead of imprisonment.

Decision:
Defendants found guilty of contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.No civil imprisonment was imposed.Monetary penalties imposed: ₹5,00,000 fine on Prem Chand Mittal (to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee).₹3,00,000 fine on Raj Kumar Mittal (to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority). Mandatory affidavits of compliance & apology to be filed by Defendants. No impact on the ongoing suit regarding trademark infringement.

Concluding Note:
The case highlights strict judicial enforcement of intellectual property rights and contempt proceedings for defiance of Court orders. While the Defendants engaged in blatant misconduct, the Court exercised judicial discretion by imposing heavy fines rather than imprisonment.This decision reinforces the importance of compliance with injunctions and protects the integrity of court proceedings in IP disputes.

Case Title: ITC Limited vs. Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors.
Date of Order: January 22, 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 647/2019 | CCP(O) 9/2020
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:447
Court Name: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

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
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539