The scope of relief claimed in main proceedings cannot enlarge the court exercising the contempt jurisdiction

The Supreme Court in the case Kangaro Industries (Regd) vs Jaininder Jain observed that the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings cannot enlarge while exercising contempt jurisdiction.

the matter before the Dubai Court could have been passed in the present case in view of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act or in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. The High Court issued a direction not to pursue the matter further before Dubai Court concerning infringement action in respect of trademark “Kangaro”. No interim order restraining the respondents from proceeding with the matter before the Dubai Court could have been passed, It also dismissed the said contention. Thereafter the Kangaro Industries approached the Apex Court by Aggrieved with this order.

The order in contempt action was unwarranted and avoidable, was observed by the Bench of the Apex Court.

As Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act lays down to prevent a breach of Contract an injunction cannot be granted, the performance of which would not be specifically enforced so the injunction will be granted in the case of breach of Contract which can be specifically enforced. Except in cases of breach of trust, when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceedings.

when the initial interim relief 07.01.1997 is limited to the registered trademark “KANGARO”, in India and also in contempt jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings The Apex Court say so as it is not open to the court.

As the plaintiff may be advised, the plaintiff can take recourse to other proceedings the court clarified for appropriate relief including for anti-suit injunction in respect of foreign jurisdiction or simplicitor injunction.

before the Dubai Court the respondents, in defiance of such order got the petitioners’ consignments to Dubai and Sri Lanka seized and are now in the process of prosecuting their action for destruction of the seized consignment. Jaininder Jain alleged that in spite of being injuncted by virtue of status quo order from interfering with their use of trademark “KANGARO” in the contempt petition filled before the High Court.

In a Trademark suit filed by Jaininder Jain seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents from using the trademark “KANGARO”, Ludhiana had passed a status quo order observed by Additional District Judge In this case.