Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 1060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
I.P. Mukerji, J.
Renu Agarwal & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Sushila Devi Agarwal - Defendant
C.C. No. 38 of 2014
Decided On : 23-09-2016
For the Petitioners:Mr. M.S. Tiwari and Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Advocates.
For the Defendant :Mr. S.P. Sarkar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subhadeep Sen and Mr. Bimalendu Das, Advocates.
An order of injunction, even if subsequently discharged, is valid and enforceable while it is in force, and its violation is punishable as contempt of court.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION ORDER - SUBSEQUENT DISCHARGE OF ORDER - EFFECT - POWER OF COURT TO PUNISH VIOLATOR - MAINTENANCE OF RULE OF LAW AND AUTHORITY OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, alleged trustees of a charitable trust, filed a suit questioning the appointment of the defendants as trustees and seeking a scheme to be framed by the court. An interim application was filed for an order restraining the defendants from dealing with or disposing of the trust properties. On 10th May 2013, the court recorded an assurance from the defendants' counsel that the property in Agarpara where the registered office of the trust was situated would not be dealt with or disposed of and its nature and character would not be changed. The building at Agarpara was substantially demolished after the order was passed. A contempt petition was filed accusing the defendants of wilful disobedience to the order dated 10th May 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that an order of injunction, even if subsequently discharged, is valid and enforceable while it is in force. The violation of such an order is punishable as contempt of court, even if the order is later set aside. The court rejected the defendants' contention that the assurance given by their counsel did not amount to an undertaking and found that the defendants had deliberately demolished parts of the building in violation of the injunction order.
Issues: 1. Whether an order of injunction, subsequently discharged, is valid and enforceable while it is in force? 2. Whether the violation of such an order is punishable as contempt of court, even if the order is later set aside? 3. Whether the assurance given by the defendants' counsel amounted to an undertaking?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order of injunction is valid and enforceable while it is in force, even if it is subsequently discharged. 2. The violation of such an order is punishable as contempt of court, even if the order is later set aside. 3. An assurance given by counsel to the court is binding on the client and can be treated as an undertaking.
Final Decision: The court held the defendants guilty of contempt and directed them to collectively pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- into the treasury of the State Government. In default, a warrant of committal would be issued against each of the respondents to undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
I.P. Mukerji, J.
This contempt application arises out of an order passed in an interim application in a suit.
2. The suit was instituted in this court by the alleged trustees of the Charitable Trust, "Maharshi Menhi Charitable Trust", registered as a charity under the Income Tax Act, 1961. They question, the appointment of the defendants as trustees and for appointment of a suitable person or persons as trustees. They also ask for a scheme to be framed by this Court to carry out the purposes of the trust.
3. This suit was instituted in the year 2013. In aid in the suit an interim application was taken out by the plaintiffs asking for an order restraining the defendants from dealing with or disposing of the trust properties. On this application, on 10th May, 2013, this Court passed an order recording an assurance on behalf of the defendants, made by their counsel that the property in Agarpara where the registered office of the trust was situated would not be dealt with or disposed of by the defendants. Furthermore, its nature and character would not be changed. This court specifically recorded that in view of this assurance no interim order was called for.
4. The present application is a contempt application accusing the defendants of wilful disobedience to the order dated 10th May, 2013. Photographs have been annexed to the petition to show that after the order was passed the building at Agarpara was substantially demolished. No date of demolition is mentioned. But paragraph - 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition to the contempt application of the first defendant (alleged contemnor no.1) says that a part of the building collapsed on 10th November, 2013.
5. The interim order was made on 10th May, 2013. This contempt petition was filed on 1st April, 2014. On 2nd May, 2014 a contempt rule was issued. Thereafter directions were made for filing of affidavits in the contempt application. However, on 7th November, 2014, whilst this contempt application was pending, the interim application was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this court. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal from the said order. The order of the learned single Judge was affirmed on appeal on 8th October, 2015.
6. When the alleged violation of this order was made the order was in force.
7. The order dated 10th May, 2013 was in force when the contempt application was filed and the contempt rule issued. When the contempt application came up for hearing before me, the interim order stood discharged because the interim application was dismissed.
8. Now, the question is: What is the effect of an order of injunction, subsequently discharged? Is the order of injunction set aside from the date it was passed and the effect is that it never existed at any point of time? Or, was the order good till it was set aside and any violator of this order liable to be punished for disobedience to it?
9. It is very instructive to discuss the authorities on the subject.
10. In M/s Kakkad Sales Agency v. Om Prakash Juluka reported in 1986 (2) CLJ 219, the facts of the case were similar to the one at hand. An interim order of injunction was passed by a learned Civil Court on 9th August 1979. There was alleged violation of that order. An application under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken out on 2nd May, 1980 by the plaintiff against the defendant. The application on final hearing was dismissed on 11th September, 1980. The division bench held as follows:-
"for violation of such an order as made under Rule 2A or for disobedience of the same, there may be punishment by attachment and order for sending the wrong doer to civil prison and such order of sending to civil prison is not dependent on attachment of property. The court under Rule 2A has also the power to punish the offender for a continuing wrong, and breach, if any, caused would continue and the commission of such a breach in the past but not on the date of the order or the application for the same, would be no defe
