Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC | Madras High Court Sentences Roopa Industries Proprietor To Three Months’ Civil Imprisonment, Attaches Assets For Continued Breach Of HUL ‘Wheel/Active Wheel’ Injunction
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice N Senthilkumar has sentenced the proprietor of Roopa Industries to three months’ civil imprisonment and ordered attachment of the company’s assets for breaching an injunction obtained by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) to protect its ‘WHEEL’ and ‘ACTIVE WHEEL’ detergent trademarks. In an order dated November 26, 2025, the Court held that, despite a subsisting injunction in a trademark infringement suit, Roopa Industries continued to market detergent products bearing deceptively similar marks, thereby attracting the measures contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for disobedience of an injunction.
The applicant, Hindustan Unilever Limited engaged in the manufacture and marketing of detergent products under the trademarks ‘WHEEL’ and ‘ACTIVE WHEEL,’ initiated proceedings alleging infringement of its registered marks. The respondents were accused of using deceptively similar marks, initially ‘DOUBLE WHALE’ and later ‘DOUBLE WHEEL,’ in connection with detergent powder and detergent bars.
An interim injunction was granted restraining the respondents from using the mark ‘DOUBLE WHALE.’ Despite this, the applicant contended that the respondents modified their label to ‘DOUBLE WHEEL,’ which was alleged to be even more deceptively similar to the applicant’s marks. The applicant further alleged infringement of its artistic work and sought action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code for disobedience of the injunction.
The respondents contested the maintainability of the suit, arguing lack of proper authorization for filing, absence of signatures and verification, and non-compliance with provisions under the Companies Act and CPC. They relied on judgments concerning the rights of power of attorney holders and questioned the validity of the plaintiff’s pleadings. The applicant relied on Supreme Court precedent regarding denial of participation in proceedings by contemnors. The matter centered on whether the respondents had flouted the injunction orders of the Court.
Justice N. Senthilkumar recorded: “Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC deals with the consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction of an interim order.” The Court stated: “In the case on hand, it is clear that this Court had initially granted an order of injunction on 16.10.2020 and thereafter, the injunction was made absolute by passing a detailed order with regard to continuous usage and registration of the trademark 'DOUBLE WHEEL' in respect of which the injunction was granted.”
It was observed: “The defendant had applied and obtained registration for the trademark 'DOUBLE WHEEL' during the subsistence of the injunction order.” The Court recorded: “The suit initiated by the respondent/second defendant in Commercial O.S. No.12 of 2024 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Gadag, Karnataka, will not come to the rescue of the respondents, as they are continuously flouting the orders of this court.”
Referring to precedent, the Court stated: “To our mind, the rule as to denying, hearing or withholding right of participation in the proceedings to the contemner may briefly be summed up and so stated. It lies within the discretion of the court to tell the contemner charged with having committed contempt of court that he will not be heard and would not be allowed participation in the court proceedings unless the contempt is purged.”
The Court further noted: “This is a flexible rule of practice and not a rigid rule of law. The discretion shall be guided and governed by the facts and circumstances of a given case.”
It was recorded: “Where the court may form an opinion that the contemner is persisting in his behaviour and initiation of proceedings in contempt has had no deterrent or reformatory effect on him and/or if the disobedience by the contemner is such that so long as it continues it impedes the course of justice and/or renders it impossible for the court to enforce its orders in respect of him, the court would be justified in withholding access to the court or participation in the proceedings from the contemner.”
The Court directed: “In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC.”
“Accordingly, the property in the name of the 1st respondent, namely Roopa Industries, shall be attached to the civil suit in C.S. No.427 of 2015 and the second respondent shall be detained in the civil prison for a period of three months. The Registry is directed to issue necessary warrant for attachment of property of the 1st respondent and for arresting the 2nd respondent. No costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. B. Madhan Babu
For the Respondents: Mr. L. M. Akki
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Roopa Industries & Proprietor
Case Number: A. No.1861 of 2025 in O.A. No.489 of 2020 in C.S. No.427 of 2015
Bench: Justice N. Senthilkumar
