Issues for consideration: Whether the wilful breach of an assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel/ advocate on behalf of his client to the court would amount to “civil contempt” as defined u/s. 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971; whether the said undertaking could be said to have been given to the court; whether the contempt court has the power to declare any contemptuous transaction non est or void; whether the beneficiaries of a contemptuous transaction have a right to be heard in the contempt proceedings on the ground that they are necessary or proper parties as they are bona fide purchasers of the suit property for value without notice; and whether the apology tendered by the contemnors deserves to be accepted.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s. 19 – Statutory appeals under – Statement made by the counsel appearing for the contemnors before the High Court in the form of an undertaking upon instructions of the clients that the property would not be sold till the disposal of the main petition – However, despite the undertaking, the appellants proceeded to execute sale deeds in favour of different parties and thereby, wilfully disobeyed the order passed by the High Court – Contemnors held guilty of contempt by the High Court and the sale transactions held to be void – Correctness:
Held: High Court did not commit any error in passing the impugned judgment and order – Undertaking was given to the High Court and the breach or disobedience would attract the provisions of the 1971 Act. [Paras
116 and 117]
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s. 2(b) – Expression ‘wilful disobedience’ – Meaning of – Wilful breach of an assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel/advocate on behalf of his client to the court, if would amount to ‘civil contempt’ as defined u/s. 2(b): Held: Expression “wilful” means act or omission which is done voluntarily or intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law – It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose – Assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel/advocate on behalf of his client to the court, the wilful breach or disobedience of the same would amount to ‘civil contempt’ as defined u/s. 2(b) of the 1971 Act . [Paras 56 and 116(i)]
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s. 2(b) – Term Undertaking – Meaning of – Undertaking by the counsel, if undertaking given to the court:
Held: Every undertaking given by a party to a litigation may not be an undertaking to the court – There exists a distinction between an undertaking given to a party to the lis and the undertaking given to a court – Undertaking given to a court attracts the provisions of the 1971 Act whereas an undertaking given to a party to the lis by way of an agreement of settlement or otherwise would not attract the provisions of the 1971 Act – Breach of an undertaking given to the other party may not constitute the contempt of court – However, whether a particular undertaking is an undertaking to the court or to the opposite party depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the language used – On facts, the undertaking could be said to have been given to the court – Wilful breach of an assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel/advocate on behalf of his client to the court would amount to “civil contempt” as defined u/s. 2(b) . [Paras 72, 73, 76-77 and 116(ii)]
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – Contempt of court – Transfer of suit property in contempt proceedings – Power of the contempt court to declare any contemptuous transactions non est or void: Held: Though the transfer of the suit property pendente lite may not be termed as void ab initio yet when the court is looking into such transfers in contempt proceedings the court can definitely declare such transactions to be void in order to maintain the majesty of law – Apart from punishing the contemnor, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the court either for reversal of the transactions by declaring the said transactions to be void or proceed to pass appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to ensure that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or anyone claiming under him – On facts, the High Court justified in declaring all the sale deeds executed by the contemnors in favour of the purchasers as non est; and that the sale deeds stand cancelled and set aside – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s. 52. [Paras 88, 89 and 116(iii)] Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – Contempt of court – Contempt proceedings – Impleadment of beneficiaries of any contumacious transaction as necessary parties:
Held: Beneficiaries of any contumacious transaction have no right or locus to be heard in the contempt proceedings on the ground that they are bona fide purchasers of the property for value without notice and thus, are necessary parties – Contempt is between the court and the contemnor and no third party can involve itself into the same – It was not necessary for the High Court to implead the purchasers in the contempt proceedings – Purchasers were quietly watching the proceedings – It is not as if they were not aware of what was happening however, when things went wrong, they now cry foul of not being impleaded as parties and heard by the High Court – Necessary parties. [Paras 97 and 116(iv)]
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s. 12 – Punishment for contempt of court – Apology tendered by the contemnors – Acceptance of: Held: Apology tendered should not be accepted as a matter of course and the court is not bound to accept the same – Apology may be unconditional, unqualified and bona fide, still if the conduct is serious, which has caused damage to the dignity of the institution, the same should not be accepted – There ought not to be a tendency by courts, to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness – All throughout the proceedings before the High Court, the stance of the appellants was that they committed a big mistake by executing the sale deeds despite having given a clear-cut undertaking to the court that they would not do so – In such circumstances, the appellants pleaded before the High Court that their apology may be accepted and they may be discharged from the proceedings – Though the apology was tendered before the High Court in the first instance, yet such apology does not deserve to be accepted and was rightly not accepted by the High Court. [Paras 100, 113 and 116(v)]
Judicial notice – Matters pertaining to contempt of court: Held: It is noticed that the courts have shown undue leniency and magnanimity towards the contemnors – Lenient attitude shown by the courts actually emboldens unscrupulous litigants to disobey or commit breach of the order passed by any court or any undertaking given to the court with impunity – Litigants, proceeded for contempt of court have realised that they have a very potent weapon in their hands in the form of apology – There ought not to be a tendency by courts to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness. [Paras 101 and 102]
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s. 12 – Punishment for contempt of court – Apology u/s. 12 – Concept of – Explained. [Paras 99, 111, 112] Contempt of Court – Contempt Jurisdiction – Exercise of – Governing principles– Stated. [Paras 40-45]
Contempt of Court – Civil contempt – Commission of – Conditions to be satisfied – Stated. [Para 43]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 442 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 104; Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Another (2006) 11 SCC 114 : [2006] 3 SCR 1068; Anil K. Surana and Another v. State Bank of Hyderabad (2007) 10 SCC 257; Bharat Steel Tubes Limited v. IFCI Limited (2010) 14 SCC 77 : [2010] 15 SCR 993; Abhishek Kumar Singh v. G. Pattanaik and Others (2021) 7 SCC 613; Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia & Another, (2000) 2 SCC 367 : [2000] 1 SCR 367; T. Ravi and Another v. B. Chinna Narasimha and Others (2017) 7 SCC 342: [2017] 3 SCR 1; Sevakram Prabhudas v. H.S. Patel and Others, 2000 (1) vol. 41 GLR 715; Mrityunjoy Das and Another v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and Others, (2001) 3 SCC 739 : [2001] 2 SCR 471; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another, (1998) 4 SCC 409 : [1998] 2 SCR 795; Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (1988) 4 SCC 592 : [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 212; Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and Another v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and Others, (2008)
14 SCC 561 : [2008] 10 SCR 1169; Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 : [2011] 15 SCR 972; Niaz Mohammad and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 332 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 720; Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharan Godha and Others, (2003) 11 SCC 1; Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and Others, (2014) 16 SCC 204 : [2014]
1 SCR 538; Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka and another v. Kapurchand Ltd. AIR 1950 Bom 336; Nisha Kanto Roy Chowdhuri v. Smt. Saroj Bashini Goho AIR 1948 Cal 294; Chhaya Debi v. Lahoriram Prashar, (1962-63)
67 CWN 819; Suman Chadha and Another v. Central Bank of India, 2018 SCC Online Del 11536; Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora, (1996) 6 SCC
14 : [1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 56; Govind Kaur v. Hardev 1982 (1) RCR 323 (13); State Bank of India and Others v. Dr. Vijay Mallya, 2022 SCC Online SC 826; Satyabrata Biswas and Others v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and Others (1994) 2 SCC 266 : [1994] 1 SCR 413; Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 397 : [2013] 2 SCR 74; Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, (1996) 4 SCC 622 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 295; Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and Others v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 384 : [2012] 10 SCR 307; Jehal Tanti and Others v. Nageshwar Singh (Dead) THR. LRS., AIR 2013 SC 2235; In Re: Mafatlal Industries Ltd. O.J. Appeal No. 16 of 1994 in Company Petition No. 22 of 1994 decided on 12.07.1996; Surjit Singh and Others etc. etc. v. Harbans Singh and others, AIR 1996 SC 135 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 354; Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 539 : [1996] 4 Suppl. SCR 271; Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb and Another, (2004) 1 SCC 191 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 290; Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 534 : [2001] 3 SCR 1129; D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26 : [1988] 3 SCR 888; Tapan Kumar Mukherjee v. Heromoni Mondal and Another, (1991) 1 SCC 397 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 55; Sub-Judge, First Class, Hoshangabad v. Jawahar Lal Ramchand Parwar AIR 1940 Nagpur 407; Priya Gupta and Another v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others, (2013) 11 SCC 404 : [2012] 12 SCR 818; M.Y. Shareef and another v. Hon’ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court and others, AIR 1955 SC 19 : [1955] SCR 757 – referred to.
M. v. Home Office and Another (1992) Q.B. 270 : (1992) 2 WLR 73 : (1992) 4 All ER 97; Clarke and others v. Chadburn and others (1985) 1 All ER 211 – referred to.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pg 1599; Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.