{"id":374812,"date":"2026-02-05T16:30:41","date_gmt":"2026-02-05T11:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=374812"},"modified":"2026-02-11T09:23:46","modified_gmt":"2026-02-11T03:53:46","slug":"saket-court-injunction-against-misrepresentation-of-court-orders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/05\/saket-court-injunction-against-misrepresentation-of-court-orders\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi District Court restrains PERWA from misrepresenting subsisting Court Orders by falsely claiming no stay on society elections"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Saket District Court, New Delhi:<\/span> In an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC) arising out of inter se dispute between two resident welfare associations, namely Pamposh Residents Welfare Association (PRWA) and Pamposh Enclave Resident Welfare Association (PERWA), claiming to represent the residents of Pamposh Enclave and alleging creation of a parallel society with a deceptively similar name and the circulation of pamphlets and announcements purportedly misrepresenting subsisting judicial orders relating to the conduct of elections, Yashu Khurana, J.<\/span>, partly allowed the application, granted ad-interim injunction against misrepresentation of court orders and restrained the defendants from —<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Circulating any pamphlet, notice, or communication, or making any oral or written statement falsely claiming that there is no stay order on elections; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Misrepresenting, distorting, or making false statements regarding judicial orders passed in relation to the plaintiff society, till disposal of the injunction application.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In the instant matter, the plaintiff-PRWA, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860<\/a>. Defendant 1-PERWA, is also a society registered under the same Act, while Defendants 2 to 5 are residents of Pamposh Enclave and office bearers of Defendant 1.<\/p>\n

    The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had created a society with a “deceptively similar name”<\/span> with the intention to constitute a “parallel society and usurp the management of Pamposh Enclave.”<\/span> It was further contended that Defendant 2 to 4 had earlier filed a suit, in which plaintiff herein was arrayed as Defendant 2 and Saket District Court restrained the plaintiff from calling any General Body Meeting (GBM) or conducting elections for its governing body. According to the plaintiff, despite being aware of this subsisting order, the defendants circulated pamphlets and announcements stating that no elections were held by the plaintiff society “even though, there is no stay or injunction by any court.”<\/span> The plaintiff asserted that such statements were issued “in complete disregard of the order dated 06-05-2023”<\/span> and were intended “to mis-lead the residents of Pamposh Enclave.”<\/span><\/p>\n

    The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1<\/a> and 2<\/a> CPC<\/a> and sought an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants, inter alia, from —<\/p>\n