IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Navin Soni - Appellant
Versus
Munish Soni & Ors. - Respondents
Cont.Cas(C) 640 of 2018 and CM Appls. 16138-39 of 2022
Decided On : 26-04-2022
Contempt - Violation of Undertaking - Order XXIII Rule 3 - [CONTEMPT] - [VIOLATION OF UNDERTAKING] - [Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC] - The court discussed the violation of the undertaking given to the Court in the Order dated 21.09.2012 passed by this Court in CS (OS) 2077/2006. The Respondents were duty-bound to vacate the premises on or before 30.09.2017, which they failed to do. The court analyzed the legal provisions under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC and emphasized that the violation of a compromise decree and an undertaking given to the party can result in contempt of Court.
Fact of the Case:
The suit for possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profit/damages was filed against the Respondents. A compromise was reached, and the Respondents agreed to vacate the premises by a specified date. The Petitioner filed a contempt petition when the Respondents did not vacate the premises as agreed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the Respondents guilty of contempt for violating the undertaking given to the Court. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the majesty of the law and the purpose of the law of contempt in building confidence in the judicial process.
Issues: Violation of Undertaking, Contempt of Court, Breach of Compromise Decree
Ratio Decidendi: The violation of a compromise decree and an undertaking given to the party can result in contempt of Court. The purpose of the law of contempt is to build confidence in the judicial process and uphold the majesty of the law.
Final Decision: The Respondents were found guilty of contempt of Court. The Court directed the Respondents to be present for arguments on sentence on the next date.
ORDER
Subramonium Prasad, J. - The instant contempt petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the Respondent No. 1 for violating the undertaking given to the Court in the Order dated 21.09.2012 passed by this Court in CS (OS) 2077/2006.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the filing of the instant contempt petition are that a suit for possession, permanent injunction and for mesne profit/damages was filed against the Respondents by one Badri Prakash Soni, who was the father of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1. During the pendency of the suit, the parents Badri Prakash Soni and Asha Soni passed away, and Vikas Soni and Navin Soni (Petitioner herein) were impleaded in lieu of the deceased parents.
3. In the suit, the parties, who are related to each other, entered into a compromise. Under the said compromise, the Respondents Munish Soni and Piyush Soni agreed to handover the ground floor of the premises, i.e. B-2/103, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, to the Petitioner on or before 30.09.2017. Apart from this, the Defendants therein (this includes the Petitioner herein) were made to pay a sum of Rs. 1 Crore under the said compromise. An application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC was filed. The relevant portions of the said application reads as under:
'f) That the defendants also admit that Smt. Asha Soni plaintiff no.2 now deceased, was the absolute owner of property bearing No.B-2/103 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110 029 and after her death by virtue of her registered Will dated 23rd July, 2009 the said property has now devolved upon Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni absolutely without any right, title or interest to any other class I legal heirs including defendants. Thus, the said entire property bearing No.B-2/103 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110 029 is absolutely owned by Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni alone.
j) That since the defendants are hard pressed of the money and the marriage of defendants Shri Piyush Soni and Ms. Shristhi Soni have to be solemnized in December and October, 2012 respectively, the defendants have requested Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni to contribute a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only) towards the expenses to be incurred by defendent no.1 on the marriage of defendant nos.2 and 3 which Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni have voluntarily agreed to give the same to defendant no.l for enabling him to incur the expenses of marriages of Shri Piyush Soni and Ms. Shristhi Soni. Since the marriage of Ms. Shristhi Soni is fixed on 29th October, 2012, and immediate expenses have to be incurred, therefore, on the request of defendant no.1, Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni have agreed to pay the substantial amount in cash and accordingly have paid Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty lacs only) in cash to defendant no.1 and Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty lacs only) by means of cheque No.937034 dated 17/09/2012 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, the receipt of which the defendants both hereby acknowledges to have received.
m) That though the applicants have agreed to gift Rs.l crore to defendants, but it has been agreed to be gifted to the defendants only upon the conditions that defendants shall positively vacate the portion of the said premises i.e. ground floor of property bearing No.B-2/103 Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi on or before 30th September, 2017 and shall hand over physical vacant possession of the same to Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni or any other person or persons claiming under them without any demur and condition and in this regard undertake to this Hon' ble Court to abide by the said undertaking punctually and absolutely.
n) That the said undertaking has been given by the defendants knowing fully well the consequences of the same and it is agreed between the parties that in case the defendants for any reason whatsoever delays the delivery of possession of the entire ground floor to Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni beyond 30th September,
Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Dhoda & Others
The significance of respecting undertakings given to the court and the consequences of persistent breach of consent decrees in property disputes.
Civil contempt involves willful disobedience of a court order, requiring intentional actions with knowledge of consequences; negligence is not sufficient for contempt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of honoring undertakings given to the court and the consequences of deliberate non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of willf....
Point of Law : Extent of disobedience of law can be stated to be nothing less than contempt of Court, thereby, bringing down the majesty of law and making a mockery of the temple of justice.
Consent decrees are enforceable under contempt law and violations constitute contempt regardless of their nature of acceptance.
Giving of an undertaking to the court is distinct from a consent order recording compromise. In the latter case of violation of compromise, no question of contempt arises, but the party can enforce t....
(1) Contempt of Court – Normally, question whether a party is guilty of contempt is to be seen in specific context of disobedience and wilful nature of same and not on the basis of conduct subsequent....
Breach of undertaking given to the Court constitutes contempt, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in court orders.
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.