- Setting aside the order of a single bench judge of the Delhi High Court (HC), Supreme Court (SC), in the case of Future Retail Ltd v Amazon.com Investment Holdings & Future Coupons Pvt Ltd v Amazon.com Investment Holdings observed that a civil contempt can be made only when there is a “wilful disobedience” and not where there is a mere disobedience.
- The case has been remanded back to the High Court.
- Since the allegation made is in the nature of a criminal liability, the same must be proved to be ‘wilful’and ‘conscious’to the satisfaction of the court.
- In an earlier round of the case, SC doubted the view that disobedience of the injunction should be wilful to invoke provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A.
- The Court set aside the order for punitive action against the petitioner and its promoters, on the basis that the precondition of ‘mental element’ for a wilful disobedience was absent.
- The Court, explaining the meaning of ‘wilful’, held that the word has a mental element and must be distinguished from acts done involuntarily or negligently or inadvertently. The act must be done with a bad purpose, without justifiable excuse or stubbornly; it must be a calculated act with an evil motive.
- Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of CPC deals with the consequence of disobedience or breach of an injunction. Any breach of an injunction may result in an order for attachment of property and civil imprisonment.
- This appeal before the SC arose out the order passed by a single judge of Delhi HC refusing to stay the refusal of vacation of Emergency award by the Singapore Arbitration Tribunal restraining the deal between Future Group and Reliance. Disputing the judgment of the HC, counsel for petitioners argued that they weren’t given sufficient time to raise their defence and were given a small window of 24 hours, before the final order, to file a brief submission. It was argued that the proceedings were carried out contrary to the principles of natural justice.
- After hearing arguments from both sides, the bench observed that unlike administrative actions were principle of natural justice is based on the procedural requirement of fair hearing, in case of judicial review, such principles are based are built into rules & procedures of the Court and must be meticulously followed.
- The SC bench further observed that Courts must be more cautious in affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties especially in matters that may have a serious impact on the economy and also while making observations on the merit of the case.
- Concluding that opportunity provided to the petitioner was insufficient and one that cannot be upheld before the eyes of the law, the matter has been remanded back to the HC for fresh consideration.
- While remitting the matter back to HC, the bench observed that an important question of law regarding the effect of an award given by the Emergency Arbitrator and the jurisdiction of such Tribunal qua such awards arise in the current matter and must be duly addressed by the High Court.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
