IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
Indra Pasricha - Petitioner
Versus
Deepika Chauhan & Ors. - Respondents
Cont. Cas(C) No. 768 of 2018 & CM Appl. No. 685 of 2020
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Contempt of Court - Property Dispute - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(b) - Order XXIII Rule 1/3 read with Section 151 CPC - Settlement Agreement - Will - Civil Contempt - Sections 448, 453 read with Section 34 of the IPC - [WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Order XXIII Rule 1/3, Section 151 CPC, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 448, 453, Section 34 of the IPC] - The court discussed the principles of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the significance of the settlement agreement and will in a property dispute. The court emphasized the importance of respecting undertakings given to the court and held that the respondents' persistent breach of the consent decree amounted to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner inherited a property and took possession as per a court order. The respondents, despite being aware of an undertaking given to the court, trespassed the property, leading to a contempt petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents committed contempt by persistently breaching the consent decree based on an undertaking given to the court.
Issues: Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by trespassing the property despite being aware of the undertaking given to the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents' persistent breach of the consent decree amounted to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Final Decision: The respondents were found to have committed contempt and were held liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
JUDGMENT :
Subramonium Prasad, J.
1. The instant contempt petition has been filed for wilful disobedience of the Order dated 14.03.2012, passed by this Court in C.S.(O.S) No. 1547/2006.
2. Facts, in brief, leading to the instant contempt petition are as follows:
(b) It is stated that the said suit was settled before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Relevant portion of the settlement agreement dated 24.10.2011 reads as under:
"ii. The defendants agree and undertake that the plaintiff shall continue to live in the entire ground floor of the property bearing No. E-54, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi during his entire life time and they shall not either dispossess him or interfere in his peaceful use and enjoyment of the said portion of the said property.
iii. The defendants further agree and undertake that they shall not sell, alienate or otherwise incumber property No. E-54, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi during the life time of the plaintiff. In case of violation of this condition, the defendants shall be liable to pay 50% of the value of the said property to the plaintiff forthwith.
iv. The defendants also agree and undertake that they will not carry out any structural changes in the aforesaid property during the life time of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further also undertakes not to part with possession or otherwise create any third party interest in the portion occupied by him during his life time. The parties shall continue to maintain status quo as on today in respect of property No. E-54, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.
v. On the aforesaid agreement and undertaking given by the defendants, the plaintiff does not wish to press his claim in the present suit and does not object if the suit is disposed off in terms of the aforesaid undertaking after the same is accepted by the Hon'ble Court. The plaintiff declares and assures "the defendants that after his death, the defendant shall become the sole and exclusive owner of the entire property No. E-54, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The defendant shall, in such event, be entitled to take physical possession of the ground floor of the Panchsheel Park property after the expiry of 3 months from the date of his death" (emphasis supplied)
(c) In terms of the settlement, a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 1/3 read with Section 151 CPC was filed before this Court. On 14.03.2012, this Court passed a decree in terms of the settlement deed. The decree was passed in presence of the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
(d) It is stated that R.N. Kapur lived alone on the property in question along with his domestic help till he breathed his last on 05.02.2018. The Petitioner, thereafter, in accordance with the directions of this Court in order dated 14.03.2012 rendered in C.S. (O.S.) No. 1547/2006, took possession of the property in question on 07.05.2018.
(e) It is stated that on the night of 24.05.2018, the Petitioner received a call in the evening from the tenant, who was residing on the first floor of the property in question, informing her that some people had trespassed in the property, i.e. the ground floor of the property in question. It was found that the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 had trespassed the property in question. Consequently, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the local police on 20.05.2018 and on 01.06.2018.
Acrow (Automation) Limited v. Rex Chambelt Inc. (1971) 3 All.ER 1175
Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh
Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha
Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya
Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa
Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly
National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus
Niaz Mohd. v. State of Haryana
R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik
Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) Ltd.
S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman
State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas
Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.