SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 581

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
In Re: Perry Kansagra - Alleged Contemnor
Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021
Decided On : 11-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : By Courts Motion, AOR Mr. P. K. Manohar, AOR Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr Adv Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Adv Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, AOR Ms. Mansi Sharma, Adv Ms. Shreya Singhal, Adv Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Adv Ms. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Simarjeet Singh Saluja, Adv.
For the CBI : Mr. Tushar Mehta SG Mr.Rajat Nair Adv Mr.Kanu Agrawal Adv Ms.Deepabali Dutta Adv Mr.Navanjay Mahapatra Adv Mr.Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

A person making false statements before the court and attempting to deceive the court interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of court. Violation of solemn undertakings and fraudulent conduct in obtaining court orders also constitute contempt of court.

Headnote:

Contempt of Court - Child Custody - Violation of Court Orders

Fact of the Case:

The court recalled its previous judgment and order due to the contemnor's violation of solemn undertakings and fraudulent conduct. The contemnor, Perry Kansagra, failed to comply with court orders, concealed material facts, and refused to bring the child back to India, leading to the initiation of contempt proceedings against him.

Finding of the Court:

The court found Perry guilty of contempt of court for willfully violating court orders and solemn undertakings, and for obstructing the course of justice. The court also held that Perry's conduct amounted to fraud on the process of the court and nullified the effect of the orders obtained through fraudulent representations.

Issues: Violation of solemn undertakings, fraudulent conduct, non-compliance with court orders, concealment of material facts, refusal to bring the child back to India, and obstruction of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a party approaching the court must come with clean hands, especially in child custody matters. Any fraudulent conduct to obtain custody under court orders would negate the trust reposed by the court. The court also emphasized that making false statements and attempts to deceive the court interfere with the administration of justice and constitute contempt of court.

Final Decision: The court found Perry guilty of contempt of court and gave him a final opportunity to present himself before the court along with the child. The court also directed Union agencies to secure the presence of Perry and the child before the court and to extend all possible assistance to the other party in securing custody of the child.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. The facts and circumstances leading to the recall of the Judgment dated 28.10.2020 and the Order dated 08.12.2020 and issuance of notice for initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnor Perry Kansagra (hereinafter referred to as Perry) were dealt with in sufficient detail in paragraphs 1 to 33 of the Order dated 7.10.2021 passed by a bench of three judges of this Court in Miscellaneous Application No.1167 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No.3559 of 2020. For avoiding repetition of the basic facts, paragraphs 1 to 33 of said Order dated 7.10.2021 be read as part of this Order.

2. After discussing the relevant facts and circumstances in aforesaid paragraphs 1 to 33, paragraphs 34 to 36 of the Order dated 7.10.2021 set out the essential features of the matter as under :-

    “34. The documents and the developments referred to hereinabove show :-

    (i) Perry had given an unequivocal undertaking to the High Court that he would submit to the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts. He had also given a solemn undertaking to this Court that he would comply with the Order dated 28.10.2020 in addition to the Judgment dated 28.10.2020.

    (ii) In response to a specific submission raised in Miscellaneous Application No.2140 of 2020 (quoted in paragraph 16 hereinabove), it was submitted by Perry that he had subjected himself to the jurisdiction of this Court. While dealing with the rival submissions in the Order dated 8.12.2020, this Court made it clear that the undertaking given by Perry to the High Court would continue to be operative, in addition to the undertaking given to this Court.

    (iii) The Judgment dated 28.10.2020 had called upon Perry to obtain a Mirror Order’ from the concerned Court in Nairobi to reflect the directions contained in the Judgment dated 28.10.2020. Thereafter, the Order dated 9.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi along with the relevant application moved by Perry seeking registration of the Judgment dated 28.10.2020, was filed in this Court.

    (iv) There was a dispute whether the registration granted vide order dated 9.11.2020 by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi amounted to fulfilling the requirement of a “Mirror Order’. The submissions on the point were dealt with in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Order dated 8. 12.2020. The learned counsel appearing for Perry had relied upon the opinion given by M/s. GMC Advocates which in turn had relied upon the decision of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi in Re: Matter of I W P (Infant) [2013] eKLR to submit that the registration itself was a “Mirror Order” in compliance of the requirements of the Judgment dated 28.10.2020.

    Relying on the submissions so advanced on behalf of Perry and in deference to the Order dated 9.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, in paragraph 10 of the Order dated 8.12.2020, this Court observed that the registration of the Judgment of this Court by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi was sufficient compliance of the directions to obtain a “Mirror Order” issued from a Competent Court in Kenya.

    (v) The Judgment dated 28.10.2020 and the Order dated 8.12.2020 passed by this Court were thus premised on the submission that the Order dated 9.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi while registering the Judgment dated 28.10.2020 passed by this Court was in fact the “Mirror Order’.

    (vi) It now transpires that by a subsequent Order dated 21.5.2021, the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi in Paragraph 13 of its order observed that the judgment of this Court was not registrable and dismissed the Originating Summons dated 30.10.2020 filed by Perry.

    (vii) At no stage Perry brought this development to the notice of this Court that the Originating Summons moved by him seeking registration of the Judgment dated 28.10.2020 passed by this Court was dismissed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi on 21.5.2021. Having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts it was the bounden duty of Perry to keep this C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top