On 12 March, Bombay High Court directed the chief metropolitan magistrate for Mumbai to issue a letter of request to a court in Australia, asking it to investigate the alleged violation of an injunction involving Australia-based company Clough Engineering.
A contempt petition had been filed against Clough in 2008 for allegedly selling oil drilling equipment in respect of which an injunction was subsisting. The single judge hearing the petition directed Clough to disclose the names of its officers who were responsible for the sale of the machinery.
Aggrieved by the directions given by the single judge, Clough approached the high court, contending that the directions given could lead to the company’s self-incrimination, which would violate article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The article states that: “No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=”show” ihc_mb_who=”3″ ihc_mb_template=”2″ ]
The court accepted Clough’s contention, but also invoked section 166A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which gives a criminal court the power to write a letter of request to a court or competent authority outside India for assistance in obtaining evidence. In passing this order, the high court ensured that the alleged contempt of court would not be left uninvestigated simply because the alleged contemnor is not identified or is not within the jurisdiction of India’s courts.
[/ihc-hide-content]
The legislative and regulatory update is compiled by Nishith Desai Associates, a Mumbai-based law firm. The authors can be contacted at nishith@nishithdesai.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
