Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, JJ.
DEEPIKA CHAUHAN – Appellant
Versus
INDRA PASRICHA – Respondent
Cont. App. (C) No. 7 of 2022, C.M. APPL. No. 19604 of 2022
Decided On : 16-03-2023
Contempt of Courts Act - Breach of Consent Decree - Section 12 - [CONTEMPT] - [BREACH OF CONSENT DECREE] - [Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 12] - The court discussed the nature of Undertaking and its implications, distinguishing between willful disobedience and breach of an undertaking given to the court. The judgment emphasized the importance of respecting court orders and the consequences of deliberate non-compliance with court undertakings.
Fact of the Case:
An appeal was filed against the Order holding the appellants guilty of contempt for breaching a Consent Decree. The dispute arose from a Civil Suit for Declaration, Partition, Possession, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction. The appellants trespassed into the property after the demise of the plaintiff, despite an undertaking to vacate the property after his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants' continued possession of the property, despite not being a party to the Civil Suit, amounted to contempt. The court emphasized the importance of honoring undertakings given to the court and held the appellants guilty of contempt.
Issues: The issues included whether non-compliance of a Consent Decree amounts to contempt of court and whether the appellant's continued alleged possession of the suit property, even though she was not a party to the Civil Suit in which the Undertaking was given, would amount to contempt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the breach of an undertaking given to the court, even if recorded in a consent decree, amounts to contempt. The court emphasized the importance of willful disobedience and the consequences of deliberate non-compliance with court undertakings.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the finding of contempt against the appellants for their deliberate breach of the Undertaking given to the court.
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed against the Order dated 19.04.2022 vide which the appellants have been held guilty of contempt and liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committing breach of consent Decree dated 14.03.2012.
2. The Contempt arises from the Consent Decree dated 14.03.2012 passed in Civil Suit CS (OS) No. 1547/2006 that was filed by one Sh. R.N. Kapur for Declaration, Partition, Possession, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against his sister-in-laws. Smt. Kamla Gupta, Indra Pasricha and Raksha were the three sisters. Sh. R.N. Kapur was married to Raksha (the sister) and they had been residing on the ground floor of the Property No. E-54, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017 (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) of which Smt. Indira Pasricha was the owner, having inherited the suit property from her late sister Kamla Gupta vide registered Will dated 04.10.2006. Upon the demise of Smt. Raksha, Sh. R.N. Kapur filed a Civil Suit bearing No. CS (OS) No. 1547/2006 for Declaration and Partition claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property. The suit was settled vide Settlement Agreement dated 24.10.2011, before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in the following terms:
(iii) The defendants further agree and undertake that they shall not sell, alienate or otherwise in-cumber 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.”
3. Accordingly, the suit was decreed on 14.03.2012 in terms of the Settlement Agreement on the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 1 and 3 read with Section 151 CPC filed before the Court.
4. Sh. R.N. Kapur resided alone along with domestic help, in the ground floor of the suit property. He died on 05.02.2018 and in accordance with the undertaking/decree of this Court, the petitioner took possession of the property on 07.05.2018. After about 17 days i.e. on the night of 24.05.2018, the respondent received a call from the tenant who was residing on the first floor of the property in question, informing her that the appellants i.e. Deepika Chauhan along with her husband Apurv Harsh/Appellant no. 2, have trespassed into the property in question. Consequently, FIR bearing No. 81/2019 dated 09.03.2019 was registered against them at P.S. Hauz Khas under Sections 448/34 IPC. On co
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....
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.
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.
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....
The deliberate and wilful breach of undertakings given to the Court constitutes civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, and such actions can obstruct the administration of ju....
Consent decrees are enforceable under contempt law and violations constitute contempt regardless of their nature of acceptance.
Breach of undertaking given to the Court constitutes contempt, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in court orders.
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
