Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
DEEPIKA CHAUHAN – Appellant
Versus
INDRA PASRICHA – Respondent
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 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
