M.L. SACHDEV versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

M.L. SACHDEV versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

The Union of India failed to comply with the Supreme Court's directive to reconstitute the Commission by the deadline, did not seek further extension, and was thus found guilty of contempt; however, in view of the unqualified apology, and subsequent remedial appointments, no punishment was imposed.

Parties
Petitioner: M.L. Sachdev; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent Contemner: A.N. Verma, Secretary, Ministry of Industry
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 November 1990
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (civil) No. 172 of 1990, in Writ Petition (civil) No. 297 of 1990 / Final Decision
Outcome
petition allowed
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Statutory Commission Appointments, Mandamus Enforcement
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Competition Law Contempt of Court Statutory Commission Appointments Mandamus Enforcement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.L. Sachdev

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

A.N. Verma, Secretary, Ministry of Industry

Respondent Contemner

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (civil) No. 172 of 1990, in Writ Petition (civil) No. 297 of 1990 / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Union of India was in contempt of court for failing to comply with the Supreme Court's direction to constitute the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission within the prescribed time

Ratio Decidendi

The Union of India failed to comply with the Supreme Court's directive to reconstitute the Commission by the deadline, did not seek further extension, and was thus found guilty of contempt; however, in view of the unqualified apology, and subsequent remedial appointments, no punishment was imposed.

Court Disposition

petition allowed

Orders

  • The respondent-Union of India in the Ministry of Industries represented by the Secretary was held guilty of contempt of Court.
  • No punishment imposed in view of the unqualified apology and subsequent compliance.