Contempt of Court – Deposit of passport to ensure presence and compliance of the order of the Court – Appellant filed a civil suit seeking declaration, possession, permanent injunction and also for partition of the suit property owned by his late mother – Mother of the appellant had constructed a main building having ground floor and first floor – According to respondent no. 1, the said property was equally divided by mother of appellant between her son-appellant and her daughter (respondent no. 1’s mother) – The Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 02.06.2008 granted interim injunction restraining the respondent no.1 and his father from alienating or creating 3rd party interest in the suit property – Thereafter, a Company formed by respondent no. 1, his wife and his father, took a term loan from a Bank and first floor of the said suit property was created as a secondary collateral security – Both respondent no. 1 and his father gave undertaking in the Court that they will clear the charge created on the suit property in 4 months – However, they failed to comply the undertakings given by them – Thereafter, various contempt applications were filed against respondent no. 1 and his father, which were followed by repeated undertakings and the same were not complied with – The Single Judge of the High Court directed respondent no. 1 to surrender his passport vide order dated 26.05.2017 to ensure his presence and his compliance of the order of the Court – However, Division Bench of the High Court set aside the said order of the Single Judge of the High Court – On appeal, held: Since repeated undertaking were filed and the same were not complied with, the Single Judge of the High Court directed respondent no. 1 to surrender his passport – The said order was passed to ensure the presence of the first respondent and compliance of the order of the Court – It cannot be said that the Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction or committed an error in ordering surrender of the passport – In order to ensure the presence of the parties in the contempt proceedings, the Court is empowered to pass appropriate orders including the surrender of passport – The Single Judge had not ordered impounding of the passport – The Single Judge had directed respondent no. 1 to deposit his passport in the Court – The Division Bench was not right in setting aside the order of the Single Judge – The order of the Single Judge of the High Court directing to deposit his passport is confirmed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The short point falling for consideration is whether respondent No.1 is to be proceeded for contempt and whether the Single Judge was right in directing the deposit of first respondent’s passport. Of course, on 15.07.2013, father of respondent no.1 and respondent No.1 filed an undertaking that they shall clear dues of Bank of India and the suit property shall be cleared of all charges/encumbrances within a period of four months and that they shall make arrangement of the loan amount to be paid to the Bank of India from other moveable and immoveable properties. Subsequently also, respondent No.1 and his father filed an undertaking before the Court. Having filed the undertaking, it was required of the first respondent to keep up to his undertaking filed before the Court. On behalf of respondent No.1, his counsel submitted that respondent No.1 was making genuine efforts to pay the amount to the Bank and clear the charge on the property; but due to unavoidable circumstances, they could not clear the charge over the suit property. As pointed out earlier, father of respondent no.1 was suffering from illness and passed away within one week after the order was passed on 20.10.2015. [Para 24][128-D-G]
2. Since repeated undertakings were filed and the same were not complied with, Single Judge directed respondent No.1 to surrender his passport. The said order was passed to ensure the presence of the first respondent and compliance of the order of the Court. It cannot be said that the Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction or committed an error in ordering surrender of the passport. In order to ensure the presence of the parties in the contempt proceedings, the Court is empowered to pass appropriate orders including the surrender of passport. While dealing with child custody matter, in David Jude vs. Hannah Grace Jude and Another (2003) 10 SCC 767, the Supreme Court directed Union of India to cancel the passport of contemnor No.1 and to take necessary steps to secure the presence of contemnor No.1 with the child in India and to ensure her appearance before the Court on the date of hearing. [Para 25][128-G-H; 129-A-B]
3. It is pointed out that the Division Bench proceeded as if the Single Judge has ordered impounding of the passport of respondent No.1; whereas, the Single Judge has only directed respondent No.1 to deposit his passport in the Court. As discussed earlier, the purpose of directing respondent No.1 to surrender his passport was only to ensure the presence of respondent No.1 who was filing repeated undertakings before the Court but was not complying with the same. In view of this Court, the Division Bench was not right in setting aside the order of the Single Judge in directing respondent No.1 to deposit his passport before the Court and the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained. In order to ensure the presence of respondent No.1 and to ensure further progress of the trial, the order of the Single Judge directing respondent No.1 to deposit his passport before the Court stands confirmed. [Para 26] [129-C-E]
David Jude v. Hannah Grace Jude and Another (2003)
10 SCC 767 – relied on.
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.