Delhi High Court
CONT.APP.(C)/16/2026 of NILESH DHANUKAR & ORS. Vs SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC & ANR. on 21 July 2026
Page 1 of 3 $~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.APP.(C) 16/2026 NILESH DHANUKAR & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Rajeshwari H, Sr. Adv. with Mr. V. K. Puri & Ms. Anshima Puri, Advs. (M: 9811059395) versus SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC & ANR. .....Respondents
$~28
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
CONT.APP.(C) 16/2026
NILESH DHANUKAR & ORS.
.....Appellants
Through:
Ms. Rajeshwari H, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
V. K. Puri & Ms. Anshima Puri, Advs.
(M: 9811059395)
versus
SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC & ANR. .....Respondents Through:
Ms. Aarshia Behl, Ms. Shruti Baid,
Ms.
Aashi
Sharma,
Mr.
Bhavya
Manda, Advs. (M: 9818061242)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 21.07.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPLs.45639/2026 & 45640/2026 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of. CONT.APP.(C) 16/2026 & CM APPL.45641/2026 (for condonation of delay)
3. The present contempt appeal has been filed by the Appellants under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 assailing the impugned order dated 18th May, 2026 passed by the ld. District Judge (Commercial Court-02), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Contempt Petition No. 6/2026 in CS (Comm) No. 470/2023 titled ‘Seimens Industry Software Inc. and Anr. v. Mr. Nilesh Dahanukar and Ors.’ (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’).
4. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has held the Appellant/Contemnor - Mr. Nillesh Dhanukar guilty of civil contempt and the sentence is yet to be awarded.
5. The impugned order arises out of a contempt petition preferred by the Respondent, alleging misbehaviour on the part of the Appellant, Mr. Nillesh Dahaunkar, towards the ld. Local Commissioner, who had been appointed by the Court to inspect the Appellants’ premises. The said Local Commissioner was appointed pursuant to an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the Respondent in CS (Comm) No. 470/2023 for the purpose of inspection and verification in the copyright infringement suit, involving the alleged piracy of computer software.
6. As per the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned order, the allegation against the Appellants is that the ld. Local Commissioner, upon visiting the premises of the Appellants, was manhandled and was not extended any cooperation by the Appellants in the execution of the commission, which ultimately led to the passing of the impugned order.
7. The Appellants are also stated to have lodged a criminal complaint against the ld. Local Commissioner.
8. It is under these circumstances that the impugned order dated 18th May, 2026 has been passed.
9. The Court has considered the matter. Since the final order in the contempt petition is yet to be passed by the Trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, the present contempt appeal is pre-mature.
10. Let the final order be passed in the contempt petition by the Trial Court.
11. The Appellants are at liberty to avail of their legal remedies, after the final order is passed.
12. Needless to add, this Court has not rendered any opinion on the merits of the case.
13. The Appellant-Mr. Nillesh Dhanukar, who is also appearing virtually today, is directed to comply with the Trial Court’s order and appear physically before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing.
14. The present contempt appeal, along with pending applications, is disposed of in the above terms. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. JULY 21, 2026/dk/sm