Back
1991 Supreme(Del) 293
High Court Of Delhi
MASTER DHRUV GOYAL - Appellant
Versus
ANAND PRAKASH - Respondent
Interim Application 954 of 1981
Decided On : 05/02/1991
D.M.Nargolkar, PINKY ANAND, S.C.SINGHA
Wilful disobedience of a court order, even if the order is not executable as a decree, may constitute civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT - SECTION 2(B) - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDER - INITIATION OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - LIMITATION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 20 - CONTINUOUS CONTEMPT - CIVIL CONTEMPT DEFINED - SCOPE OF SECTION 12 - APPLICABILITY OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.
Fact of the Case:
Defendants 2 to 4 wilfully disobeyed a court order to pay interest on deposits belonging to the plaintiff. Despite a show cause notice, they failed to comply. The plaintiff moved an application for contempt proceedings against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendants' actions constituted civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The court found that the defendants' disobedience was wilful and continuous, and that the initiation of contempt proceedings was not barred by limitation under Section 20.
Issues: 1. Whether the initiation of contempt proceedings was barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 2. Whether the court could order the defendants to pay interest on deposits belonging to the plaintiff, even though the partnership firm to which the deposits belonged was not a party to the suit. 3. Whether the defendants' actions constituted civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides that contempt proceedings must be initiated within one year from the date the contempt is alleged to have been committed. However, in cases of continuous contempt, the limitation period begins from the date the contempt ceases. In the present case, the defendants' disobedience was continuous, as they wilfully failed to pay interest on the deposits over a period of time. Therefore, the initiation of contempt proceedings was not barred by limitation. 2. The court held that it had the authority to order the defendants to pay interest on the deposits, even though the partnership firm to which the deposits belonged was not a party to the suit. This was because the defendants had undertaken to pay the interest earlier, and the court's order was merely enforcing that undertaking. 3. The court held that the defendants' actions constituted civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Civil contempt is defined as wilful disobedience to a court order or breach of an undertaking given to a court. In the present case, the defendants wilfully disobeyed the court's order to pay interest on the deposits, and were therefore guilty of civil contempt.
Final Decision: The court initiated contempt proceedings against defendants 2 to 4 and required them to show cause why they should not be held guilty of contempt of court and punished accordingly.
( 1 ) NOTICE to show cause was issued to defendants 2 to 4 as to why the proceedings for Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against them on their wilfully not obeying the order of this Court dt. 29. 5. 84. Replies have been filed to this show cause notice. Smt. Neera Goyal, wife of late Shri Suresh Goyal and her two children Dhruv Goyal and Ritu Goyal had filed this suit for partition of properties, rendition of account and recovery of money. There exists a partnership firm M/s Anand Prakash Ravinder Kumar, which is not a party to the present suit. However, defendants 1 to 4 were partners of the said firm. Certain amounts belonging to the plaintiff stood deposited in the said firm and on 7. 5. 82 defendant No. 1 had given an undertaking to this court that interest accruing on the said deposits shall be paid to the pff. by deft. 1 regularly and he has been paying the said interest accruing on the said deposits to the pff. On 29. 5. 84, the Court had directed that deft. 1 to 4 should not only pay the arrears of interest but also pay the future interest regularly accruing on the said deposits belonging to the pff. Admittedly the interest amount has not been paid by deft. 1 to 4 since Nov, 1987. Deft. 1 has since expired.
( 2 ) THE present application was moved by the pff. for requiring the said deft. to comply with the orders of this court and on 7. 3. 1988, the Court directed deft. 2 to 4 to pay arrears of interest which amount came to about Rs. 17,500. 00 upto the date of the order and failing which it was directed that show cause notice will stand issued to the deft. 2 to 4 to explain why the contempt of court proceedings be not initiated against them. Counsel for the deft. has argued that this initiation of contempt proceedings is barred by limitation and thus, notice should be discharged. Sec. 20, Contempt of Courts Act lays down that no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In the present case, deft. 2 to 4 are committing the contempt continuously by wilfully not complying with the order for paying the interest on the said deposits. The interest was not be paid only once but was to be paid continuously. So, on the face of it, the initiation of contempt proceeding against deft. 2 to is not barred by limitation.
( 3 ) COUNSEL for the deft. also tried to argue that no order requiring the defts. to pay the interest could have been made by the court as the said firm was not a party to this suit. This court cannot reopen this issue as the order has been made on 29. 5. 84, requiring defts. 1 to 4 to pay the interest which deft. 1 has undertaken to pay earlier.
( 4 ) UNDER S. 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, a civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. This definition covers the present case because here deft. 2 to 4 are wilfully disobeying the order of this court and thus. are prima facie guilty of having committed the civil contempt.
( 5 ) IN Sneh Lata Gupta vs. V. K. Mittal, 1986 Rajdhani Law Reporter 209, a direction was given to the co-owner and also to the tenant for depositing the rent. Both of them had willfully not complied with the order. The court had held that they are guilty of having committed the civil contempt. The learned counsel for deft. has made reference to Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir Bhasin, AIR 1979 SC 1528=1979 Raj. L. R. 513, wherein the Supreme Court has held that non-compliance of a compromise decree or a consent order would not amount to contempt of court. It was held that such orders could always be executed. In the present case there is no consent decree passed by this court. The subsequent order made by this court was not with consent which required deft. 2 to 4 to pay the interest accruing on
