The necessity of willful and intentional violation of court orders for contempt proceedings and the importance of exercising contempt jurisdiction with great care and caution.

Anil Kumar, J.

1. This is a petition under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for disobeying and disregarding the order dated 8th August, 2005 and for violating the alleged undertaking given to the Court and for violating the terms of the family settlement dated 16th July, 2005.

2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint against the defendant company from evicting the plaintiffs from second floor of the property bearing No. D-178, Defence Colony, New Delhi and from obstructing their ingress and egress to the said property. Smt. Nutan Pandit, alleged contemnor, is stated to be Director of the defendant company and is also the wife of plaintiff No. 1.

3. The disputes regarding the divorce and other proceedings were also pending between Smt.Nutan Pandit, Director of defendant company and the plaintiff. A settlement was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendants pursuant to which a joint application dated 5th July, 2005 supported by the affidavits of Sh.Vijay Pandit, plaintiff and Smt.Nutan Pandit, Director of the defendant company was filed.

4. On the application of the parties, the statement of Sh.Vijay Pandit and Smt.Nutan Pandit were recorded who had stated that they have signed the settlement after reading and understanding the same and the joint application incorporating the terms of settlement is signed by them. No undertaking was given by them to the Court nor any undertaking was accepted by the Court.

5. On the basis of their joint application the Court had passed the following order:

The parties have filed his application contending that they have settled the suit in terms of settlement arrived at between them and the plaintiff prays for withdrawal of the suit in terms of the settlement arrived at. The settlement is incorporated in Annexure `A’ annexed with the application.

The Counsel for the parties stated that the settlement is signed by the parties. The application for compromise also includes the terms of settlement. Application is signed by the parties and is also supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff and the affidavit of the director of the defendant, Mrs. Nutan Pandit. The application is marked as Exhibit P-1. The counsel states that the party shall be bound by the terms and settlement as incorporated in application which is exhibited P-1. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the plaintiff is allowed to withdraw the suit in terms of settlement set out in the application leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The suit is disposed of.

6. Therefore, pursuant to the settlement between the parties the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the suit in terms of the settlement leaving the parties to bear their own cost and no decree was passed as it was not prayed by the plaintiff and defendant that a decree in terms of the settlement be passed.

7. The petitioner is now aggrieved by a suit for declaration filed by Smt.Nutan Pandit to the effect that the settlement dated 16th July, 2005 entered between the parties be declared null and void because her consent was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. According to the petitioner the respondent Smt.Nutan Pandit cannot claim that the part of the settlement is valid and other part of the settlement is not valid as her consent has been allegedly obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.

8. According to the petitioner since the respondent is violating the terms of settlement and a false and frivolous case has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner, therefore, the respondent has committed contempt of this Court and proceedings be initiated for committing contempt of this Court against the respondent.

9. The application is contested by the respondent contending that the application is an abuse of process of law. It is contended that the respondent is within her