Supreme Court Revives Breach-of-Injunction Proceedings In ‘HERO’ Trademark Row, Restores Order 39 Rule 2A Plea

Supreme Court Revives Breach-of-Injunction Proceedings In ‘HERO’ Trademark Row, Restores Order 39 Rule 2A Plea

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has revived proceedings alleging breach of an injunction in the long-standing “HERO” trademark dispute between Hero Cycles Limited and Hero Ecotech Limited. A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the Patna High Court’s order which had quashed the trial court’s direction to initiate contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Factual Background

The dispute traces back to a 2014 suit filed by Hero Cycles alleging violation of a family settlement governing the use of the “HERO” trademark. An ad interim injunction restraining use of the registered mark “HERO” in relation to bicycles or bicycle parts was granted on September 22, 2014 and confirmed on March 21, 2015. Although the High Court had interfered with the injunction at one stage, the Supreme Court restored it in 2016. Subsequently, Hero Cycles moved the trial court alleging disobedience of the injunction and sought initiation of proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

Procedural Background

By order dated September 7, 2019, the trial court observed     that “a contempt proceeding be initiated against the Defendants,” directed parties to lead evidence, and ordered that a separate record be opened for trial of the contempt proceedings.

The Patna High Court, by judgment dated September 3, 2025, quashed the trial court’s order, holding that the court had not followed the proper procedure under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and had prematurely recorded that contempt proceedings be initiated. Aggrieved, Hero Cycles approached the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in its handling of proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

2. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the trial court’s order in its entirety.

3. Whether the application alleging breach of injunction ought to be restored for adjudication.

Contentions of the Parties

Hero Cycles contended that its application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC required adjudication on merits and that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings without allowing proper inquiry. Hero Ecotech supported the High Court’s reasoning, arguing that the trial court had failed to follow the procedural requirements and had prematurely initiated contempt proceedings.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that the trial court was required to adjudicate the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC in accordance with law. It clarified that if an inquiry into alleged breach of injunction is sought, both sides must be granted a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence.

The Bench noted that the High Court’s interference had the effect of terminating the proceedings entirely, rather than correcting any procedural infirmity. At the same time, it found that the trial court’s approach required reconsideration.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside both the High Court’s order dated September 3, 2025 and the trial court’s order dated September 7, 2019, restoring the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC to the file of the trial court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Decision

The Supreme Court restored the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC to the trial court for fresh consideration, directing that the alleged breach-of-injunction proceedings be adjudicated after granting both parties reasonable opportunity.

In this case the petitioner was represented by Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shyam Divan, Manish Vashisht, with Avishkar Singhvi, Durga Das Bhatla, Ashutosh Nagar, AOR Pushpindu Singh Sodhi, Priyansha Sharma, Aman Sharma, Uditanshu Singh, Navtej Singh, Nidhi Jain, Subhang Shankar Gogoi, Vedansh Vashisht, Anshika, Saloni Bhatt, Advocates.