1. Contempt petition — wilful disobedience of orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court — liability under the Contempt of Courts Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 448
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund – Petitioner
Versus
Dharmesh S. Jain and Another – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 940 of 2021, Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14724 of 2021
Decided On : 12-05-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court – Wilful disobedience of order passed by High Court in Notice of Motion in Commercial Arbitration Petition constitutes contempt of Court.
Contempt of Court – Wilful disobedience of order passed by High Court in Notice of Motion in Commercial Arbitration Petition constitutes contempt of Court.
Subject
Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience of Court Orders
Act Referred
Headnote
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt of Court – Wilful disobedience of order passed by High Court in Notice of Motion in Commercial Arbitration Petition – Neither respondents/contemnors have complied with orders passed by this Court as well as High Court nor have they settled dispute Amicably – Respondent No.1 directed to undergo seven days simple imprisonment, as also, impose a fine on both respondents, which is quantified as Rs. 5,00,000/- , to be deposited before High Court of Judicature at Bombay within a period of two weeks from today and on such deposit, Rs. 4,00,000/- be paid to petitioner herein and Rs.1,00,000/- be transferred to Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority – However, so as to give one last opportunity to contemnor to purge contempt and comply with orders passed by Bombay High Court as well as this Court, sentence shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from today, failing which sentence shall take effect. (Paras )
Facts of the case:
Vide detailed judgment and order dated 10.03.2022 passed in Contempt Petition, this Court held the respondents guilty, more particularly, respondent No.1 herein – Dharmesh S. Jain, for contempt of this Court for wilful disobedience of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14724/2021, as also, for wilful disobedience of the order passed by the High Court dated 08.08.2019 in Notice of Motion No. 960 of 2019 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 55 of 2019 and the respondents herein rendered themselves liable for suitable punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.03.2022, the respondents/contemnors were required to be heard on quantum of sentence. Accordingly, on 22.03.2022, matter was placed before the Bench for further hearing on the quantum of sentence.
Findings of Court:
Sentence shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from today, failing which, the aforesaid sentence shall take effect and on non-compliance, the respondent No.1 herein – Dharmesh S. Jain will then surrender before the concerned Court/Authority to undergo the sentence imposed by this Court, i.e., seven days simple imprisonment for a wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and the High Court.
Result : Contempt Petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Puneet Singh Bindra, Simran Jeet, Sanampreet Singh, Dhiraj Mhetre.
For the Respondents: Ashok Paranjpaye, Kunal Vajani, Kunal Mimani, Arpit Yadav, Shubhang Tandon.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Puneet Singh Bindra, Simran Jeet, Sanampreet Singh, Dhiraj Mhetre.
For the Respondents: Ashok Paranjpaye, Kunal Vajani, Kunal Mimani, Arpit Yadav, Shubhang Tandon.
Table of Contents
2. Request for deferment of sentencing to facilitate an amicable settlement or ensure compliance with the disobeyed judicial orders. (Para 2 )
3. Failure to comply with judicial orders or reach a settlement despite being held guilty of wilful disobedience and granted sufficient opportunities. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Continued wilful disobedience of judicial orders, despite opportunities to purge contempt, justifies the imposition of imprisonment and monetary penalties under the Contempt of Courts Act. (Para 4 )
5. Sentence of simple imprisonment and imposition of fine, with the sentence kept in abeyance for a limited period to allow compliance. (Para 4 )
6. What is the consequence of failing to purge contempt after being held guilty of wilful disobedience?
When a party fails to comply with judicial orders or reach an amicable settlement despite being held guilty of wilful disobedience and granted sufficient opportunities, the court may sentence the contemnor to simple imprisonment and impose a fine. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. May a court grant a grace period before executing a sentence for contempt?
Yes, a court may keep a sentence of imprisonment in abeyance for a specified period to provide the contemnor a final opportunity to purge the contempt and comply with the underlying judicial orders. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
1. Vide detailed judgment and order dated 10.03.2022 passed in the aforesaid Contempt Petition, this Court held the respondents guilty, more particularly, respondent No. 1 herein- Dharmesh S. Jain, for the contempt of this Court for wilful disobedience of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14724/2021, as also, for wilful disobedience of the order passed by the High Court dated 08.08.2019 in Notice of Motion No. 960 of 2019 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 55 of 2019 and the respondents herein rendered themselves liable for suitable punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.03.2022, the respondents/contemnors were required to be heard on the quantum of sentence. Accordingly, on 22.03.2022, the matter was placed before the Bench for further hearing on the quantum of sentence.
2. We have heard Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the contemnors on the quantum of sentence. However, at his request, the order on the quantum of sentence was deferred, so as to enable the respondents/contemnors to either enter into an amicable settlement with the petitioner or to comply with the orders passed by this Court and the High Court, of which they are held guilty for wilful disobedience.
3. Thereafter, Shri Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/ contemnors was called upon by the Court with regard to the latest developments which might have a bearing on the imposing of a suitable sentence. Shri Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/contemnors stated at the Bar that though the respondents/contemnors have tried to settle the dispute amicably with the petitioner, but there is no final settlement arrived at between the parties. The fact remains that even after the respondents are held guilty for wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court as well as the High Court vide judgment and order dated 10.03.2022, and even thereafter giving sufficient opportunities to the respondents/contemnors to either comply with the orders of this Court and the High Court, of which wilful disobedience is proved and they are held liable to be punished suitably under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, or to settle the dispute amicably with the petitioner herein, neither the respondents/contemnors have complied with the orders passed by this Court as well as the High Court nor have they settled the dispute amicably.
4. In the above circumstances and in furtherance of our earlier judgment and order dated 10.03.2022 whereby the respondents, more particularly, respondent no. 1 has been held guilty for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 28.10.2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14724/2021, as also, the order passed by the High Court dated 08.08.2019 in Notice of Motion No. 960/2019 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 55/2019 and rendered himself liable for suitable punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and even thereafter granting them sufficient opportunities to either settle the dispute amicably or comply with the orders of this Court and the High Court, neither the orders have been complied with nor the dispute has been settled amicably, we hereby sentence respondent No. 1-Dharmesh S. Jain to undergo seven days simple imprisonment, as also, impose a fine on both the respondents, which is quantified as Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs), to be deposited before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay within a period of two weeks from today and on such deposit, Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lakhs) be paid to the petitioner herein and Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) be transferred to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. However, so as to give one last opportunity to the contemnor to purge
