Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Sunaina Singh - Appellant
Versus
Anand Kohli & Anr. - Respondents
CONT.APP.(C) No. 11 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous No. 39077-39078 of 2021
Decided On : 29-10-2021
Undertaking - Contempt Proceedings - Non-payment of Rent - Appeal Dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The appellant conceded that contempt proceedings were initiated due to non-payment of rent and an undertaking to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent was given.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no scope for interference with the impugned order as the appellant failed to vacate the premises or pay the rent/occupation charges.
Issues: Non-payment of rent, undertaking in contempt proceedings, failure to vacate premises
Ratio Decidendi: The court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with the undertaking and non-payment of rent/occupation charges.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the pending application was closed.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM No.39078/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CONT.APP.(C) 11/2021 & CM No.39077/2021[Application filed on behalf of the appellant for interim relief]
2. Ms Preeti Singh, who appears on behalf of the appellant, concedes that contempt proceedings were initiated in this court, on account of an undertaking given before the Learned Additional District Judge on 03.10.2020, inter alia, to the effect, that the unpaid rent will be paid within two weeks from that date.
3. Furthermore, we are informed by Ms Singh that, upon contempt proceedings being initiated in this court, an undertaking was given on 27.05.2021 that the appellant will vacate the premises and pay the arrears of rent as well as use and occupation charges.
3.1 Unfortunately, the order dated 27.05.2021, whereby the above-mentioned undertaking has been recorded, has not been placed on record, but what we have instead is, the order of the learned single judge, passed on 25.10.2021, based on the said undertaking.
3.2. Ms Singh says that, further time is required to vacate the subject premises and the payment of arrears of rent along with use and occupation charges.
4. To be noted, in paragraph 4 of the order dated 25.10.2021, the amount in this regard is pegged at Rs. 23,00,000/-.
4.1 A perusal of the impugned order shows that, the appellant is given time, till the next date of hearing for payment of the aforesaid amount.
4.2. The next date of hearing before the learned single judge is 09.12.2021.
5. Having regard to the record of the case, we find no scope for interference with the impugned order, as the appellant is neither vacating the subject premises, nor is she paying the rent/occupation charges qua the same.
6. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, pending application shall also stand closed.
Failure to comply with undertakings in contempt proceedings can lead to dismissal of appeal.
Deliberate and wilful disobedience of court orders and undertakings can lead to punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The contempt petition was dismissed as the respondent vacated the premises, indicating lack of ongoing contempt proceedings.
A party's compliance with a court order resolves contempt proceedings.
Repeated breaches of undertakings and non-compliance with court orders can lead to a finding of contempt, and leniency may be misunderstood as weakness.
Execution of orders in contempt proceedings cannot be equated with decrees for purposes of execution under the Civil Procedure Code.
Contempt proceedings are valid even when remedies exist under execution law, as they address wilful non-compliance with court orders, not just recovery of debts.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
