Bombay High Court Imposes Rs 4 Crore Cost on Patanjali for Breach of Interim Order
The Bombay High Court recently brought down the hammer on Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, slapping them with a staggering cost of Rs 4 crore for violating a 2023 interim order. The order had explicitly prohibited the company from peddling its camphor products in connection to a trademark infringement lawsuit lodged by Mangalam Organics Ltd.
In a scathing judgment, Justice R I Chagla singled out Patanjali for a “wilful and deliberate” disregard of the court mandate, leaving no room for doubt regarding their intention to flout the order. The court’s decision stemmed from a petition filed by Mangalam Organics Ltd, seeking contempt action against Patanjali for continuing to market their camphor products in defiance of the restraining order.
Notably, the court instructed Patanjali to fork out the hefty sum within two weeks, adding to the Rs 50 lakh directed earlier in the month. The timeline set by the court underscored the gravity of the situation, emphasizing the repercussions awaiting failure to comply. The legal tussle originated in August 2023, when the high court, through an interim order, barred Patanjali from vending or promoting their camphor products, following allegations from Mangalam Organics of copyright infringement.
In a dramatic turn, Rajneesh Mishra, director of Patanjali, submitted an affidavit in June 2024, tendering an unconditional apology and committing to honor the court’s directives. However, the court took a dim view of these developments, especially in light of Mishra’s claim in the affidavit regarding the substantial supply of the contentious camphor product post-injunction.
While the court contended that there were grounds to consider imprisonment for Mishra, it opted against such a ruling, mindful of the implications for his personal freedom. However, the court didn’t pull any punches, warning that failure to cough up the eye-watering sum of Rs 4 crore within the stipulated two weeks would result in immediate detention for Mishra.
This resounding judgment serves as a stark reminder of the far-reaching consequences of flouting court orders, particularly in intellectual property disputes. It remains to be seen how this hefty penalty will impact both the litigants and the larger legal landscape.
