FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. versus AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 01-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 299
299
FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
v.
AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 859-860 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 01, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Doctrines/Principles – Principle of Natural Justice – Judicial
Interference – Scope and Ambit – Natural Justice is an important
facet of a Judicial Review and providing effective natural justice to
the affected parties, before a decision is taken, is necessary to
maintain Rule of law – Courts are expected to follow the principles
of natural justice meticulously to ensure that the highest standard
of fairness are afforded to the parties – Natural Justice and
unfairness are sworn enemies – Therefore, the court are required to
stick to such principles and particularly in matters of commercial
nature which could have serious impact on the economy and
employment of thousands of people – Whenever an order is struck
down as invalid being in violation of the principles of natural justice,
there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left
open.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXXIX r. 2-A – A civil
contempt can be made out u/Or.XXXIX r. 2-A not when there has
been mere ‘disobedience’, but only when there has been ‘wilful
disobedience’ – Since the allegation of wilful disobedience is
criminal in nature, the same has to be proved to the satisfaction of
the court – The power, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, must
be exercised with caution rather than on mere probabilities.
Remitting back the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. Attention has been drawn to a catena of procedural
orders passed by the High Court in OMP (ENF) (COMM) No.17
of 2021. From the record, it can be observed that FRL and FCPL
were not provided sufficient time or opportunity to file their
counter or raise their defense. On 29.01.2021, they were allowed
to file a brief note of submission within twenty- four hours, before
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
orders were passed on 02.02.2021. On a perusal of the orders, it
is found that serious procedural errors were committed by the
Single Judge. Natural justice is an important facet of a judicial
review. Providing effective natural justice to affected parties,
before a decision is taken, is necessary to maintain the Rule of
law. Natural justice is usually discussed in the context of
administrative actions, wherein procedural requirement of a fair
hearing is read in to ensure that no injustice is caused. When it
comes to judicial review, the natural justice principle is built into
the rules and procedures of the Court, which are expected to be
followed meticulously to ensure that highest standards of fairness
are afforded to the parties. It is well known that natural justice is
the sworn enemy of unfairness. It is expected of the Courts to be
cautious and afford a reasonable opportunity to parties, especially
in commercial matters having a serious impact on the economy
and employment of thousands of people. Coming to the facts
herein, the opportunity provided to the appellants herein was
insufficient, and cannot be upheld in the eyes of law. Whenever
an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of the
principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case
and fresh proceedings are left open. All that is done is to vacate
the order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect. Such
proceedings are not terminated and are usually remitted back.
[Paras 35, 36, 37 and 38][315-E-H; 316-A-C]
2. Contempt of a civil nature can be made out under Order
XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC not when there has been mere
“disobedience”, but only when there has been “wilful
disobedience”. The allegation of wilful disobedience being in the
nature of criminal liability, the same has to be proved to the
satisfaction of the court that the disobedience was not mere
“disobedience” but “wilful” and “conscious”. Considering the
fact that in the suit instituted by FRL, the Single Judge had earlier
allowed FRL and respondent ‘A’ to continue their pursuit before
various regulatory authorities, and in view of the interim orders
of this Court dated 22.02.2021 and 09.09.2021, and the Courts
below, the Court is inclined to set-aside aforesaid directions as
the pre-condition of ‘sufficient mental element for wilful
disobedience’ is not satisfied. The punitive directions issued in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
301
the impugned orders of the Single Judge dated 02.02.2021 and
1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.