Smt. Lavanya C & Anr. vs Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deseased By LRs. & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

5 March 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 13999 of 2024

Result

Partly allowed

Bench

Pankaj Mithal, Sanjay Karol

Citation

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 450 : 2025 INSC 325

Acts & Sections

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 CPC

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Trial Court holding the appellants not guilty of wilful disobedience of their undertaking given to the Court.

Headnote

Contempt of Court – When – Appellants gave undertaking before the Trial Court to not alienate the property which was the subject matter of the suit – Respondents filed application alleging violation thereof – Trial Court held that the Appellants were not guilty of wilful disobedience of the undertaking given by them – Order set aside by High Court – Correctness:

Held: Plea of the appellants that the undertaking to not alienate the subject matter property was given by the lawyer without requisite authority, not accepted – The undertaking in question was given in July 2007 and reiterated in August 2007 –Trial Court made such an undertaking into an order of the Court in November 2007, which was extended at regular intervals – The application for violation of the undertaking/order of the Court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A was made in 2011 i.e., after a period of four and a half years – Had the undertaking been without requisite authority, the appellants were well within their rights to seek discharge of that order, however, no such step was taken – Alienation of the subject matter property was despite express orders of the Court and thus, in violation thereof – High Court rightly punished the appellants for contempt of Court – However, order modified, as directed – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXXIX R. 2A. [Paras 6, 11, 12, 14]

Legal Profession – Relationship between Advocate and client – Nature:

Held: A lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature and the former is cast in terms of agency of the latter – The lawyer must respect the decision-making right of the client – Any undertaking given to a Court cannot be without requisite authority from the client. [Para 9]

Judgment Sanjay Karol J. 1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 23rd February 2021/16 th March, 2021 passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7055/2013(CPC) by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, whereby the respondents before the High Court, appellants herein (defendants in Trial Court), were held guilty of disobedience of their undertaking before the Trial Court of not alienating the property, subject matter of the suit. The original defendants in the Trial Court through their counsel gave an undertaking which was allegedly disobeyed. The plaintiffs aggrieved thereby f

View Subscription Plans →