Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 16 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: M/S. Sayesh Enterprises (appellant), represented by sole proprietor Mrs. Jyoti Sachdev Iyer, and M/S. Emerald Ventures (respondent), represented by Mrs. Anjum Imtiaz.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Commercial Appeal No.312 of 2024 filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking to set aside the order dated 2‑Aug‑2024 that dismissed Contempt Application (Com.Misc.13/2019).
  • Background: The appellant, a fashion designer retailing "Jyoti Sachdev Iyer" trademarked clothing, entered a Franchise Agreement dated 14‑Oct‑2017 with the respondent. The respondent allegedly violated Clause 20.3 (non‑compete) and continued selling apparel after issuing a termination notice on 1‑Jun‑2018. The appellant obtained an ex‑parte temporary injunction on 17‑Dec‑2018 restraining the respondent from breaching the non‑compete clause. The respondent ignored the injunction and continued sales, prompting the appellant to file a contempt application (Com.Misc.13/2019) under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(a) of the CPC.
  • Trial Court Findings: The trial court dismissed the contempt application on 2‑Aug‑2024, holding it not maintainable because the interim injunction granted on 17‑Dec‑2018 was automatically terminated by the court’s own order on 8‑Jun‑2020, which rejected IA No.1 of 2018. Consequently, the ex‑parte injunction no longer subsisted.
  • Appellate History: The appellant appealed the dismissal in Commercial Appeal No.23 of 2021; the Karnataka High Court dismissed that appeal on 27‑Jul‑2021, confirming the trial court’s order.
  • Legal Reasoning: The court reiterated the principle that contempt proceedings cannot be pursued when the underlying interim order has been vacated, as it would be a futile exercise of jurisdiction. The non‑compete clause, even if enforceable, was limited to two years (up to 1‑Jun‑2020) following the termination notice, further weakening the appellant’s claim for a continuing injunction.
  • Counsel: For the appellant – Smt. Revathy Adinath Narde; for the respondent – Sri Amit A. Mandgi.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is dismissed; Com.Misc.13/2019 remains dismissed as not maintainable, and no contempt proceedings will proceed.
  • All pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed.

Topics: Franchise Dispute, Contempt Proceedings