Emphasising that as a Constitutional Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950, appropriate orders were warranted to ensure that its directions were not taken in a perfunctory or dismissive manner, the Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on Parle Agro (defendant), payable to “BHARAT KE VEER” within three weeks from the date of the order, and directed the deponent of the affidavits dated January 22, 2026 and February 16, 2026 to tender an unconditional apology within four weeks on account of non-compliance with sub-paragraph (vii) of paragraph 139 of the order dated September 18, 2023.
While underscoring that the sanctity and purity attached to court orders must at all times be maintained to ensure that the administration of justice is seen to be consistent and firm, the Court rejected the suggestion that a direction to place a document on record could be diluted merely because a party considered that such document may not be relevant at a particular stage.
At the same time, the Court expressly held that the non-submission of the certificate of sales revenue every two months was not, in its opinion, wilful; however, it was a clear, unambiguous and serious violation of the Court’s order. The Court also noted that neither any explanation nor any apology for such non-compliance was tendered or discernible from the contents of the two affidavits.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela identified two issues for consideration: first, whether the defendant had violated the direction to take down all advertisements/posts featuring the tagline “FOR THE BOLD”; and second, whether the defendant had violated the direction to file its certificate of sales revenue every two months.
On the first aspect, the Bench noted inconsistencies between the two affidavits of Bhalchandra Sripad Virkar. In the affidavit dated January 22, 2026, the deponent stated that the social media posts/advertisements featuring the tagline “FOR THE BOLD” were taken down from the defendant’s social media handles as soon as they came to know through the present application, whereas in the affidavit dated February 16, 2026, the deponent stated that the defendant came to know about the presence of the posts on third-party social media platforms through the present application and thereafter immediately took them down.
The Bench then examined whether such inconsistency amounted to wilful or deliberate disobedience within the meaning of Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. It reiterated that although Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC does not expressly use the word “wilful” before “disobedience”, to hold a person guilty under the provision, the disobedience has to be wilful because the consequence carries criminal/penal liability, including civil imprisonment up to three months and attachment of property.
The Bench accepted the defendant’s submission that the omission to take down the two posts was most likely an error or mistake and had no semblance of deliberate or wilful disobedience. In view of the extensive use of promotional posts by the defendant, the Bench held that it was possible that the defendant had, by inadvertence or oversight, omitted to delete these two offending posts. Although the accounts in question belonged to the defendant, the omission was treated as inadvertent rather than wilful or deliberate.
On the second aspect relating to non-filing of the certificate of sales revenue every two months, the Bench held that the defendant’s submissions did not appeal to it. The Bench found that both affidavits dated January 22, 2026 and February 16, 2026 disclosed no reason whatsoever for not having filed the certificate every two months from the time use of the label containing “For The Bold” commenced till February 2026, despite a lapse of more than two and a half years. The Bench observed that, at the very least, an explanation ought to have been furnished, particularly when the defendant was admittedly a listed company whose sales revenue was statutorily audited and whose sales accounts were properly recorded and maintained.
Briefly, the underlying suit seeks a decree of permanent injunction against infringement of the registered trademark/tagline “For The Bold”, passing off, dilution, delivery up, damages and costs against the defendant. The plaintiff referred to the earlier orders dated January 09, 2026, February 06, 2026 and February 16, 2026, pursuant to which the defendant had filed two affidavits dated January 22, 2026 and February 16, 2026. It was contended that both affidavits demonstrate that the defendant knowingly, wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions contained in sub-paragraph (vii) of paragraph 139 of the order dated September 18, 2023.
According to the plaintiffs, the order dated September 18, 2023 had restrained the defendant from altering the label on its “B Fizz” beverage bottle/can without prior approval of the Court; from using the tagline “For The Bold” as the predominant part of any advertising campaign for its “B Fizz” beverage; from airing or continuing the Facebook advertisements extracted in paragraph 13 of the said order; and, if such advertisements were continuing, from not immediately taking them down and discontinuing them.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had continued to violate the aforesaid directions on its X/Twitter and Instagram accounts. Reliance was placed on the affidavit of Bhalchandra Shripad Virkar dated January 22, 2026, in which it was admitted that advertisements/social media posts carrying the tagline “FOR THE BOLD” were taken down from the social media handles only after the defendant came to know of them through the present application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. The same affidavit also referred to filing the record of certified sales revenue of the “B Fizz” beverage along with the affidavit.
The plaintiffs also argued that the second affidavit dated February 16, 2026 contained a materially different stand. While the first affidavit admitted that the social media posts were the defendant’s own, the second affidavit stated that the posts complained of were on third-party social media platforms. The plaintiffs, therefore, submitted that instead of purging itself and tendering an unconditional apology, the defendant attempted to describe the violations as inadvertent and neither deliberate nor wilful.
The defendant objected that it had not issued any fresh advertisement in breach of the order, and that the impugned two posts found on X/Twitter and Instagram were old posts of the year 2022, much prior to the order dated September 18, 2023, which had remained undeleted purely due to oversight and inadvertence. It was specifically argued that there was neither any deliberate nor wilful disobedience, that no benefit accrued to the defendant by retaining such old posts, and that had the plaintiffs informed the defendant of their continued presence, they would have been immediately removed.
In respect of the failure to file the certificate of sales revenue every two months, the defendant contended that there was no wilful violation since the relevance of such figures would arise only at the stage of assessing damages during trial, and that the delay in filing would therefore not amount to wilful or deliberate disobedience.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, along with Advocates Avni Sharma, Aparna Singh, Deepak Gogia, Aadhar Nautiyal and Shivangi Kohli, for the Plaintiff
Senior Advocate C.M. Lall, along with Advocates Ankit Arvind, Shashwat Rakshit and Nidhi Pathak, for the Defendant
