Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 392
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Nirmal Jindal – Petitioner
Versus
Shyam Sunder Tyagi & Ors. – Respondents
Cont.Cas(C) 92 of 2022
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Vertika Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Debopriyo Moulik, Advocate, Shyam Sunder Tyagi - in person, Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC(Civil) GNCTD with Ms. Sanjana Nangia, Advocate.
Willful flouting of court orders and deliberate acts undermining the authority of the court constitute contempt of court, warranting strict punishment to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Violation of Court Orders - W.P.(C) No. 7356/2021 & CM No. 33867/2020 - Sections 447/448/451/511/34 IPC - The court found the Respondent guilty of contempt of court for willfully demolishing a boundary wall constructed in compliance with court orders. The Respondent's apology was rejected, and he was sentenced to 45 days of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner filed a contempt petition for the willful demolition of a boundary wall constructed in compliance with court orders. The Respondent claimed misconception regarding the property demarcation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the Respondent guilty of contempt of court for willfully flouting the court orders by demolishing the boundary wall. The Respondent's apology was rejected due to the deliberate nature of the demolition.
Issues: Violation of Court Orders, Willful Demolition of Boundary Wall, Contempt of Court
Ratio Decidendi: The Respondent's deliberate demolition of the boundary wall, despite pending property demarcation disputes, constituted contempt of court. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the majesty and dignity of the courts of law.
Final Decision: The Respondent was sentenced to 45 days of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 for contempt of court.
JUDGMENT :
Subramonium Prasad, J.
1. The instant contempt petition has been filed for the alleged willful violation of the orders dated 15.10.2020 and 21.12.2020, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7356/2021 & CM No. 33867/2020.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant contempt petition are as follows:
a) Aggrieved by the non-consideration of her application for putting up a boundary wall to secure her property in terms of the revenue land records, the Petitioner herein approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7356/2021.
b) Notice was issued on the writ petition and a Status Report was filed by the Police. The Status Report has been reproduced in the order dated 15.10.2020. After considering the Status Report, this Court on 15.10.2020 passed the following order:
“5. The photographs show that the petitioner’s property is unprotected and can be walked into and put to misuse by anybody. It is in nobody’s interest that the place be open to mischief. Therefore, in the interest of the parties, it should be secured in such a manner that all mischief is obviated. The petitioner is ready and willing to give an undertaking to the effect that if the boundary wall is secured, she will remove it in terms of such order as may be passed by the Deputy Commissioner Revenue, in her appeal and applications which are pending for more than half a decade.
6. In the circumstances, let the Deputy Commissioner dispose-off her appeal and/or her application for securing her property in terms of the above, preferably within a period of 2 months from today. The parties may be heard through video conferencing, through counsel.”
c) As proper police protection had not been granted to the Petitioner, the Petitioner moved an application, being CM APPL. 33867/2020, seeking directions. The said application was considered by this Court on 21.12.2020 wherein this Court, in terms of the order dated 15.10.2020, directed the Police to grant protection to the Petitioner at the time of construction of the boundary wall. Relevant portion of the said order reads as under :
“4. The learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that the boundary wall has not been constructed as the petitioner was awaiting due action by the respondents.
5. The Court would note that assurance was given by the learned ASC for the State that status quo apropos the petitioner’s possession of the property would be secured. Since the petitioner is stated to be in possession of the property by the learned ASC for the State, let the boundary wall be constructed to secure the property in terms of the previous order as soon as possible, with due intimation to the learned ASC for the State. Albeit, the same would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, in particular those of R-6, who states that some possession has been given to him.
6. The objective of the aforesaid exercise is that the property be secured from mischief. The appropriate undertaking as indicated in para 5 of the aforesaid order, shall be furnished by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) and a copy thereof shall be filed in this Court within one month.
7. The learned ASC for the State states that because of COVID-19 pandemic related administrative exigencies, the demarcation could not be carried out. Therefore, he seeks and is granted 3 more weeks’ time to comply with the order, with due notice to the parties. An endeavour shall also be made to dispose-off the petitioner’s appeal within a period of 5 months from today”
d) It is stated that the boundary wall was constructed on 24.12.2020, and in terms of the orders dated 15.10.2020 and 21.12.2020, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7356/2021 & CM No. 33867/2020, an undertaking was given by the Petitioner on 23.12.2020 that in case it was found that the boundary wall had not been constructed in terms of the orders of this Court or if the Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, so ordered, the Petitioner would demolish the boundary wall.
e) It is st
