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

1954 Supreme(Cal) 93

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Lahiri, J. P. Mitter
SURETENNESSA BIBI - Appellant
Versus
CHINTAHARAN DAS - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Case 76  Of  1954
Decided On : MAY 13, 1954

Advocates Appeared:
Charu Chandra Ganguly, JITENDRA N.GUHA, PRAFULLA KUMAR CHATTERJEE, Satya Priya Ghosh

Breach of an unconditional and unqualified personal undertaking given to a court amounts to contempt of court.

Headnote:

CONTEMPT OF COURT - PERSONAL UNDERTAKING - BREACH - COMMITTAL TO PRISON - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (ACT V OF 1908), ORDER 23, RULE 3 - ORDER 41, RULE 11.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Chintaharan Das, gave a personal undertaking to the court to vacate the premises in dispute by a certain date. However, he failed to do so and continued to occupy the premises. The respondent, Suretennessa Bibi, filed an application before the court alleging breach of the undertaking and seeking committal of the appellant to prison for contempt of court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant had deliberately breached the personal undertaking given to the court and that his conduct amounted to contempt of court. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the undertaking was not unconditional and that the consequences of default were not provided for in the undertaking or in the order passed by the court.

Issues: Whether the appellant's breach of the personal undertaking given to the court amounted to contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that breach of an undertaking given to a court by a person in a pending proceeding on the faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action is misconduct amounting to contempt. The court further held that the undertaking given by the appellant was unconditional and unqualified and that the consequences of default were not provided for either in the undertaking or in the order passed by the court.

Final Decision: The court convicted the appellant for contempt of court and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand.

LAHIRI J.

( 1 ) THIS rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why he should not be committed to prison for contempt of this Court for breach of a personal undertaking given by him to this Court in Second Appeal No. 1461 of 1953. The facts relevant for the purposes of this Rule may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner Suretennessa Bibi instituted a suit for ejectment against there opposite party Chintaharan Das in respect of premises No. 37d, Surendra Nath Banerji Road. The petitioner succeeded in getting as decree for ejectment in the Courts below and against the decree of the lower appellate Court the opposite party Chintaharan Das filed a second appeal which was registered' and numbered as S. A. 1461 of 1953. That second appeal came up for Hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P. O. , before this Court on 1-12-1953 on which date the following order was recorded by the Court: "this appeal will be heard. The records need not be sent for and the usual notices need not issue, as it is represented to 'us that Mr. Charu Chandra Ganguly, Advocate, has got instruction to appear for the 'sole respondent. Mr. Ganguly is permitted to enter appearance for the' sole respondent. This appeal is disposed of in terms of the Joint petition of compromise filed by the parties in Court today. This petition will form part of the decree of this Court. "

( 2 ) THE Joint petition of compromise which was filed by the parties was supported by an affidavit by Chintaharan Das on behalf of the appellant and by Abdul Gani on behalf of the respondent. Paragraph 2 of the petition runs as follows: "the aforesaid appellant gives a personal undertaking to the Hon'ble Court that he will give quiet and vacant possession of the premises in question (which is the. subject-matter of the suit and appeal) to the aforesaid respondent by 25-2-1954. " paragraph 3 of the petition permits the respondent to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant as cost. These are the only two terms upon which the appeal was allowed to be compromised on 1-12-1953. Thereafter the respondent Suretennessa Bibi filed an application before us alleging that though the appellant Chintaharan Das undertook to give quiet, and vacant possession of the premises by 25-2-1954, he had failed to do so and accordingly the petitioner applied for a Rule upon the opposite party Chintaharan Das to show cause Why he should not be commit-ed to prison for breach of the personal undertaking given to this Court. It appears that the opposite party Chintaharan Das addressed a letter to the petitioner Suretennessa Bibi bearing the date 26-2-1954 in which he stated that he had vacated the house after Informing the petitioner verbally. In spite of his request to take possession of the house as well as the articles of furniture neither the petitioner nor her representative turned up and as such the opposite party was compelled to keep the articles under lock and key. This letter has been filed by the petitioner with his petition and it is marked as annexure "b". To this letter the petitioner sent a reply on 28-2-1954 denying the allegations that the opposite party was prepared to give vacant possession of the premises on or before 25-2-1954. The petitioner further alleged that upon enquiry she was satisfied that the premises were still in the possession of the opposite party who had not yet vacated the same and in this letter the petitioner charged the opposite party with having taken no step to comply with the terms of the solenama filed in this Court.

( 3 ) THE opposite party in showing cause before us has stated that he had sub-let a considerable portion of the premises in dispute long before the institution of the suit for ejectment and that the petitioner Suretennessa Bibi was aware of this fact. It is curious that this allegation was not made in the letter which was addressed by the opposite party to the petitioner on 26-2-1954 nor was it mentioned in the affidavit which was sworn to b








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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