Should Disobedience Of Injunction Be ‘Wilful’ To Invoke Order 39 Rule 2A CPC? Supreme Court Doubts Its Earlier Judgment
Order 39 Rule 2A CPC: CONSEQUENCE OF DISOBEDIENCE OR BREACH OF INJUNCTION.
Case: Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs. Future Retail Limited
Coram: Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai
Case No: CA 4492-4493 OF 2021
Court Observation: “It is one thing to say that the power exercised by a court under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A is punitive in nature and akin to the power to punish for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is quite another thing to say that Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A requires not “mere disobedience” but “wilful disobedience”. We are prima facie of the view that the latter judgment in adding the word “wilful” into Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A is not quite correct and may require to be reviewed by a larger Bench. Suffice it to say that there is a vast difference between enforcement of orders passed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and orders made in contempt of court.”
“When an order for a permanent injunction is to be enforced, Order XXI, Rule 32 provides for attachment and/or detention in a civil prison. Orders that are passed under Order XXI, Rule 32 are primarily intended to enforce injunction decrees by methods similar to those contained in Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A. This also shows the object of Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A is primarily to enforce orders of the interim injunction”
Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, Supreme Court, Injunction & Judgment.