JUDGMENT 1. These proceedings titled as under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC') have been initiated by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 24.02.2020 passed in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 854/2019 : Kutbuddin Kanorwala v. Upkar Agrofoods Private Limited & Anr. 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated that the petitioner had filed the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Commercial Court, Udaipur whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC had been rejected. The Court on 24.02.2020 while admitting the appeal and ordering for issuance of notices, on stay application restrained the respondents from using the disputed trade mark as mentioned in Annexure-IV, Annexure-V and Annexure-VI annexed with the memo of appeal and in any other similar trade mark. The respondents were also restrained from using the trade name - 'Z.A. Konerwala'. It is alleged that the respondents have willfully and deliberately flouted the order dated 24.02.2020. 3. Submissions have been made that after passing of the order dated 24.02.2020, the counsel for the petitioner sent a caution notice (Annex. 2) to the respondents on 02.03.2020, which was duly delivered to the respondents on 04.03.2020. The petitioner also got published a trade mark notice in the local newspaper on 07.03.2020 (Annex. 4), with reference to order dated 24.02.2020, however, instead of following the interim order granted by this Court on 24.02.2020, the respondents got issued a trade mark caution notice (Annex. 5) making false averments essentially by way of counter-blast to the trade mark notice (Annex. 4) issued by the petitioner pursuant to order passed by this Court. Submissions have also been made that the respondents have indulged in selling and marketing of the spices with trade mark 'Upkar' and firm name 'Z.A. Kanorwala' and continue to flout the interim order granted by this Court. Invoices dated 11.03.2020, 12.03.2020, 07.05.2020, 19.06.2020 and 24.06.2020 alongwith infringing packets have been annexed as Annex. 6. 4. Based on the said submissions, it has been prayed that the respondents be punished for committing contempt of this Court and be further directed to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 24.02.2020. 5. Invoices dated 11.03.2020, 12.03.2020, 07.05.2020, 19.06.2020 and 24.06.2020 alongwith infringing packets have been annexed as Annex. 6. 4. Based on the said submissions, it has been prayed that the respondents be punished for committing contempt of this Court and be further directed to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 24.02.2020. 5. At this stage, it may be noticed that while the application has been titled as under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC, the entire averments made in the application are in the nature of an application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Even the application itself has been titled as 'Civil Contempt Petition' and in the relief clause, prayer has been made that the contempt application be allowed and the respondents be punished for committing the contempt of the Court. 6. A response to the application has been filed by the respondents, inter-alia, indicating that the order dated 24.02.2020 was passed ex parte by the Court, but as soon as the respondents came to know about passing of the order, they stopped using the disputed trade mark in compliance of the said order; the respondents have neither disobeyed the orders pass, nor intend to do so. Qua the notice (Annex. 5), produced by the petitioner, it is submitted that the caution notice has neither been published by the respondents, nor the same is in any way related to and/or relevant for the present proceedings. 7. Qua invoices, submissions have been made that the invoices have been issued by 'Upkar Thok Bhandar' and 'A.P. Agency', which have no relation with the respondents and that no material has been produced to substantiate the allegations as to how the respondents have any connection with the said invoices. It is further denied that the respondents have in any manner violated the directions issued by this Court. Rather, it is claimed that they are following the injunction granted by the Court and therefore, the application deserves dismissal. 8. No rejoinder to the reply has been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that issuance of the trade mark caution notice (Annex. 5) by the respondents is in clear violation of the directions issued by this Court, wherein they were specifically restrained from using the disputed trade mark and trade name. 8. No rejoinder to the reply has been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that issuance of the trade mark caution notice (Annex. 5) by the respondents is in clear violation of the directions issued by this Court, wherein they were specifically restrained from using the disputed trade mark and trade name. Further submissions have been made that the very fact that the goods with the disputed trade mark were available to be sold right up to June 2020, as is evident from the invoices (Annex. 6) and it is apparent that the respondents were violating the interim order granted by this Court with impunity and therefore, they deserve to be dealt with for disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. 10. With regard to plea raised by the respondents in relation to the trade mark caution notice (Annex. 5) having not been issued by the respondents, it is submitted that the respondents, have cleverly got issued the notice in the name of Sh. Jakir Hussain Kanorwala, who is the father of Mr. Hakimuddin, Director of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 Saifuddin Kanorwala, therefore, the respondents cannot escape from the liability for such trade mark caution notice. It was reiterated that the invoices (Annex. 6) alongwith infringing packets clearly show that the respondents have violated the order dated 24.02.2020 and therefore, they deserve to be punished for the same. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the plea as raised in the reply that the respondents have no connection with the trade mark caution notice (Annex. 5) and that the invoices (Annex. 6) have no connection with the respondents and the infringing packets also cannot lead to a conclusion that the respondents have violated the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by this Court and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 12. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13. The order dated 24.02.2020 passed by this Court in the appeal filed by the petitioner, whereby the respondents were restrained from using the disputed trade mark and trade name, was directed against Upkar Agrofoods Private Limited and Saifuddin Kanorwala. The order was passed on 24.02.2020, when despite service the respondents did not appear i.e. the same was passed ex parte. The petitioner appears to have issued notice dated 02.03.2020 (Annex. The order was passed on 24.02.2020, when despite service the respondents did not appear i.e. the same was passed ex parte. The petitioner appears to have issued notice dated 02.03.2020 (Annex. 2) bringing to the notice of the respondents the order dated 24.02.2020, which notice was delivered on 04.03.2020, which was followed by trade mark caution notice in the newspapers on 07.03.2020 (Annex. 4). 14. The allegations in the present application are founded on Annex.5, a trade mark caution notice, allegedly published by the respondents and the invoices and infringing packets (Annex. 6) indicating the sale of the goods in violation of the injunction granted by this Court. The trade mark caution notices (Annex. 5) indicate that the same have been issued by a counsel indicating that the same was being issued by him based on the instructions of his client 'Sh. Jakir Hussain Kanorwala', partner of M/s. Z.A. Kanorwala' with reference to some pending Suit No. 125/2013 for dissolution of the partnership and Suit No. 72/2017 pertaining to trade mark 'Upkar'. 15. As noticed, the order dated 24.02.2020 was passed by this Court with Upkar Agrofoods Private Limited and Saifuddin Kanorwala being the respondents. Said Sh. Jakir Hussain Kanorwala, who appears to have got issued the trade mark caution notice (Annex. 5) is not a party to the present proceedings. Therefore, in absence of any injunction/order by this Court against said Sh. Jakir Hussain Kanorwala, and said caution having been issued by him, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated/disobeyed the injunction granted by this Court. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the reply, wherein specific plea in this regard was taken by the respondents. 16. The submission made that as Sh. Jakir Hussain Kanorwala, is father of Sh. Hakimuddin and Sh. Saifuddin Kanorwala, who have been impleaded as Director of the Company, the respondents cannot escape the responsibility for said trade mark caution notice, cannot be accepted looking to the nature of the proceedings. The plea raised regarding lifting of the corporate veil, looking to the nature of the proceedings, wherein it is nowhere the case of the petitioner that Sh. Jakir Hussain Kanorwala is connected with the respondent No. 1 company, cannot be countenanced. As such, the plea raised seeking to allege disobedience of order passed by this Court on account of issuance of the trade mark caution notice (Annex. Jakir Hussain Kanorwala is connected with the respondent No. 1 company, cannot be countenanced. As such, the plea raised seeking to allege disobedience of order passed by this Court on account of issuance of the trade mark caution notice (Annex. 5) has no substance. 17. Coming to the invoices and infringing packets filed as Annex. 6, the respondents have specifically indicated that neither M/s. Upkar Thok Bhandar nor M/s. A.P. Agency has anything to do with the respondents, which aspect has not been disputed by the petitioner and therefore, the allegation of disobedience, based on said invoices, per se cannot implicate the respondents. Further, a look at the infringing packets, produced by the petitioner, reveals that the packaging date indicated on the said packets are March 2020 and February 2020. As noticed, the order dated 24.02.2020 was an ex parte order and the petitioner apparently conveyed the respondents of the passing of the order by this Court by his caution notice dated 02.03.2020 (Annex. 2), which was delivered on 04.03.2020 and by publication of the caution notice in the local newspapers in the form of trade mark caution notice on 07.03.2020 (Annex. 4) and therefore, it cannot be said that the said infringing packets have been packed by the respondents in violation of the order dated 24.02.2020, as it is not the specific case of the petitioner that three packets produced indicating packing date as March 2020, is after the notice was served on the respondents and therefore, based on the said material also, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated/disobeyed the order dated 24.02.2020. 18. The respondents have clearly indicated in the response that after receipt of the notice/becoming aware of the order, they have not violated the order passed by this Court, which has not been disputed by the petitioner by filing any further material, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by this Court. 19. As noticed, the petitioner, though has titled the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, throughout in the petition the submissions made, are in the nature of seeking proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association & Anr. 19. As noticed, the petitioner, though has titled the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, throughout in the petition the submissions made, are in the nature of seeking proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association & Anr. : (2022) 1 SCC 101 has dealt with the nature of the proceedings for civil contempt and laid down that what is relevant is the "willful" disobedience and when two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. 21. Based on the above parameters, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also, no case is made out by the petitioner for initiating the proceedings for contempt against the respondents. 22. In view of above discussion, the petition has no substance, the same is therefore, dismissed.