Court holds that interim injunction and suit relief were confined to Bengaluru and Delhi transport corporations; use of technology in Goa not violation of court order
In a significant judgment delivered on September 24, 2026, the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan) dismissed a civil contempt petition filed by M/s Series 5 Labs Private Limited against M/s Transhelp Technologies Private Limited and others. The contempt petition alleged willful disobedience of an appellate interim order restraining the use of certain patented and copyrighted technology related to the "BMTC Passes (New)" feature in a mobile application used for bus ticketing.
The background of the case involves an intellectual property dispute between the parties concerning the use of technology embedded in the "Tummoc" app, which provides ticketing and pass services for the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) and Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). The original suit filed by Series 5 Labs sought permanent injunctions restraining Transhelp and its associates from making the "BMTC Passes (New)" feature and "AC Bus Tickets (Coming Soon)" available to the public across all platforms. The trial court granted an interim injunction to this effect.
However, upon appeal, the Karnataka High Court stayed the trial court's order only to the extent of permitting the use of the app by BMTC and DTC commuters, while the rest of the injunction remained in force. This limited stay took into account the public convenience of commuters relying on the app.
The contempt petition arose after Transhelp was found to be using the same technology for private e-ticketing with the Kadamba Road Transport Corporation in Goa. Series 5 Labs contended that such use amounted to violation of the interim order. However, the High Court, after considering the reliefs sought in the original suit and the scope of the appellate order, held that the suit and injunction were confined strictly to BMTC/DTC services. No all-India injunction was sought or granted. Therefore, usage of the technology in Goa did not constitute contempt or disobedience of the court's order.
The court emphasized that a party cannot enlarge the scope of interim orders or seek to extend injunctions beyond the pleadings in the suit through contempt proceedings. If Series 5 Labs wished to restrain use of the technology nationwide, it must amend the suit accordingly instead of resorting to contempt petitions.
Consequently, the contempt petition was closed and the notice discharged. The decision reinforces the principle that injunctions must be construed strictly as per the pleadings and orders and highlights the balance courts maintain between protecting intellectual property rights and public convenience.
Bottom Line:
Contempt jurisdiction - Alleged violation of appellate interim order in intellectual property suit - Original suit and interim injunction were confined only to use of technology/app in relation to BMTC/DTC - Use of same app for e-ticketing in Goa could not be treated as willful disobedience - Complainant cannot, under guise of contempt or interim order, seek all-India injunction when no such relief was claimed in suit - Remedy, if any, is to seek amendment of suit.
Statutory provision(s):
Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), Section 151 CPC
