The Delhi High Court, in the case of Cross Fit LLC v. Mr. Renjith Kunnumal & Anr, emphasized that a court cannot deem a person guilty of violating its orders and take punitive action against them solely based on strong suspicions of disobedience.
Justice C Hari Shankar stated that the court cannot presume or conjecture disobedience and that suspicion cannot be a substitute for concrete evidence.
He noted, ‘The court cannot presume or conjecture disobedience. In its zeal to uphold its majesty and ensure the implementation of the rule of law, the court cannot hold a person guilty of violating its orders and proceed punitively against him merely because the circumstances give rise to a strong suspicion of the order of the court having been disobeyed.’
The court made these remarks while addressing an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The application alleged disobedience of an injunction order issued by the High Court on July 8, 2021, in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by CrossFit LLC.
The applicant accused the defendant, Renjith Kunnumal, of continuing to use the ‘SFC CROSSFIT’ trademark for his gym in Kozhikode and using the logo on the gym’s membership forms, despite the injunction order.
The defendant argued that he had no involvement with the gym since his partnership had dissolved in May 2019.
After considering the case, Justice Hari Shankar found insufficient proof to justify the defendant’s conviction and punishment. He noted that there was no satisfactory evidence of the defendant’s awareness of the matter, and no conclusive evidence of his ongoing association with the gym.
As a result, the court rejected the application, concluding that it could not find the defendant guilty of disobeying the court’s order or impose punishment on him under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.
Advocates Saif Khan, Shobhit Agrawal, and Prajjwal Kushwaha represented CrossFit LLC, while the defendant, Renjith Kunnumal, was represented by advocates Akash Vajpai and Sudheesh KK.”
