The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant judgment in Court on Its Own Motion v. M/s Obsession Naaz & Ors., concerning the violent assault on court-appointed Advocate Commissioners during raids on counterfeit Samsung product sellers in Kolkata. The matter arose from civil proceedings filed by Samsung Electronics against vendors selling fake goods, leading to criminal contempt proceedings.
Background of the Case
Samsung Electronics filed CS(OS) No.4024/2014, alleging that several shops in Kolkata’s Khidderpore market were openly selling counterfeit Samsung mobile phones and accessories. On 23 December 2014, the Delhi High Court restrained 15 identified vendors from dealing in such counterfeit goods. The Court also appointed 11 Advocate Commissioners to conduct inspections and seize fake products.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Ward Formation in Washim Zilla Parishad Elections
On 13 January 2015, when the Advocate Commissioners reached the market with police assistance, they were brutally attacked by a mob. Advocate Shravan Sahary sustained severe injuries, including broken teeth, while other Commissioners like Ankur Mittal and Siddharth Khatana were also assaulted. Police officers accompanying them were injured as well.
“The attack on Advocate Commissioners was a brazen interference in the administration of justice,” observed the Court.
Following the attack, Kolkata Police registered FIR No. 13/2015 under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 333, 379, and 34. Several accused, including Anwar Hussain, Lalchand Khan, Niyaz Ahmad, Md. Asif, Md. Jasim, and Md. Salauddin, were arrested. A chargesheet was filed in 2016 against multiple respondents.
Read Also: - Bombay High Court Quashes CIDCO’s Cancellation of Hospital Plot Allotment in Navi Mumbai
The Delhi High Court then issued Show Cause Notices (SCN) to the respondents, directing them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for obstructing justice. Many respondents pleaded alibis, claimed innocence, or tendered unconditional apologies.
The Bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar emphasized the purpose of contempt jurisdiction:
“The respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen, and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if the judiciary is undermined.”
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Upholds Removal of Solapur Court Employee Convicted Under IPC Section 309
The Court relied on precedents such as Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, reiterating that willful disobedience and obstruction of justice amount to contempt.
Case Title: Court on Its Own Motion v. M/s Obsession Naaz & Ors.
Case Number: CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015, CRL.M.A. 50201/2018, CRL.M.A. 14374/2025
Date of Decision: 22 August 2025
