The Delhi High Court has disposed of cross contempt petitions arising from an alleged breach of a family settlement over trademark rights, after recording that the settlement had ultimately been complied with. While accepting an unconditional apology for the delayed compliance, the Court directed one party to reimburse ₹2.5 lakh towards the expenses incurred in executing a court-appointed Local Commission.
Background of the Case
The dispute stemmed from a Settlement Agreement dated November 24, 2024, which was recorded by the Delhi High Court while disposing of connected intellectual property proceedings.
Subsequently, Pushpa Bansal Trading as M/s Ambica Food Products filed a contempt petition alleging that Mahaveer Bansal continued using the trademark "SHREE JI" despite the settlement prohibiting such use. In response, Mahaveer Bansal also initiated contempt proceedings, alleging that Pushpa Bansal Trading had violated another clause of the same settlement by using the word "Bansal" in a prominent manner on business documents.
Court's Observations
Justice Mini Pushkarna examined the affidavit filed by Mahaveer Bansal, in which he tendered an unconditional apology and stated that any delay in complying with the settlement resulted from a genuine misunderstanding rather than deliberate disobedience.
The affidavit also stated that trademark and copyright-related applications covered by the settlement had been withdrawn, the use of the "SHREE JI" mark had ceased, and online listings had been removed or take-down requests had been issued wherever necessary.
The Court observed:
“The unconditional apology placed before this Court, shows that delayed compliance of the Settlement Agreement had been occasioned by a genuine misunderstanding.”
The Court also noted that products and packaging recovered during the execution of the Local Commission were stated to be residual material from earlier operations and that no fresh manufacturing under the disputed mark was found to be continuing.
Considering the compliance recorded before it, the Court directed that the seized products be destroyed by Mahaveer Bansal after prior intimation to Pushpa Bansal Trading. An authorised representative of Pushpa Bansal Trading, who is not a family member, was permitted to remain present during the destruction process.
The Court further instructed the Local Commissioner to hand over the keys of the premises where the seized goods were stored to Mahaveer Bansal's counsel.
Decision
Although the Court found that no further contempt directions were required, it observed that the delay in complying with the settlement had necessitated the appointment of a Local Commissioner. Accordingly, Justice Mini Pushkarna directed Mahaveer Bansal to pay ₹2.5 lakh to Pushpa Bansal Trading within four weeks towards the expenses incurred for the Local Commission.
The Court kept all other rights and contentions of the parties open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings and disposed of both contempt petitions.
Case Details
Case Title: Pushpa Bansal Trading as M/s Ambica Food Products v. Mahaveer Bansal (Connected with Mahaveer Bansal v. Suresh Bansal & Others)
Case Number: CONT.CAS(C) 267/2025 and CONT.CAS(C) 668/2025
Judge: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Decision Date: July 9, 2026
