Delhi High Court Upholds Contempt Orders Against Jain Shikanji Director, Reduces ₹5 Lakh Cost To ₹3 Lakh

On 2 July, the Delhi High Court upheld a Trial Court's refusal to accept an unconditional apology filed by Anubhav Jain, director of Jain Shikanji Pvt Ltd, in contempt proceedings arising from wilful violation of an injunction restraining use of the trademark “Jain Shikanji”.

A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh directed the issuance of warrants of arrest and attachment of properties, affirmed the refusal to accept the apology while modifying only the quantum of costs, but reduced the exemplary cost imposed on him from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 3 lakh. She wrote:

“Court orders and direction of this Court to surrender, he had absconded and was making mockery of law. Fresh warrants of arrest have been issued against him in addition to warrants of attachment of the properties mentioned therein and exemplary cost of Rs.5 lacs has been imposed to be paid to the Respondent as compensation for delaying the case,”

The dispute originated from a suit filed by Satish Kumar Jain before the Commercial Court seeking a permanent injunction against infringement and passing off of the trademark “Jain Shikanji”.

In November 2022, the Trial Court granted an interim injunction restraining Jain Shikanji Pvt Ltd from using the mark “Jain Shikanji” or “Jain Shikanji Restaurant”. The High Court dismissed an appeal against this order in March 2023. Allegations of continued violation led Satish Kumar Jain to file a contempt application, which the Trial Court allowed in June 2023 after holding that Anubhav Jain had attempted to circumvent and flout court orders in a wilful manner.

Jain Shikanji Pvt Ltd's challenge to this order initially secured a stay on the surrender direction, but a Division Bench in September 2025 dismissed the appeal and vacated the stay, directing Anubhav Jain to surrender before the Trial Court. It observed that the company and its director had continued to violate court orders “with impunity and without any regret”. A Special Leave Petition was later withdrawn, followed by withdrawal of a review petition.

Anubhav Jain did not surrender despite directions. Non-bailable warrants issued against him remained unexecuted with a report that he was not traceable. He subsequently filed an application along with an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology, which the Trial Court rejected by its order dated 1 June 2026, noting repeated non-appearance despite directions and describing his conduct as “making mockery of law” with an attitude of “Do Whatever You Want To Do”.

Before the High Court, Jain Shikanji Pvt Ltd argued that Anubhav Jain's absence was unintentional and bona fide, attributing it to stress and the Trial Court's refusal to permit appearance through video conferencing.

The Bench rejected the submission, holding that he showed disregard for court orders and wilfully flouted them, and also found no justification for insisting on appearance through video conferencing when directed to surrender and appear physically. However, it reduced the exemplary cost from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 3 lakh, directing payment within two weeks, and otherwise dismissed the petition while affirming the Trial Court's order.