ANTON PILLER AND ABUSE

Abstract

An Anton Piller Order may comprise of an injunction to restrain infringement , permission to enter defendant’s premises to either take inspect and take inventory of documents and remove infringing goods, injunction to restrain defendants from disclosing contents of injunctions to third parties etc. The purpose of the order, as explained in Yusuf v Salama1 is to prevent obstruction of the danger of destruction of evidence. Though Templeman J expounded the concept in EMI v Pandit 2 , it was post the judgment in Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes3 that these orders took shape. The substantive standards for granting such orders were laid down in Anton Piller4 by Lord Denning and Lord Ormrod over which subsequent cases have been developed. The plain reading of the purpose of these orders themselves presents a scope for abuse sans regulation, especially in lieu of Puttasamy v Union of India 5 post which Right to Privacy has been included under Art 21 of the Constitution. The note tries to examine the nature of execution of such orders while giving due emphasis on the powers of the commissioners appointed to carry out such searches.