IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Dinesh Saigal – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kapoor – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 537 of 2020
Decided On : 06-05-2023
Contempt - Violation of Undertakings - CM(M) 1344/2019, 19.06.2020, 24.09.2020, 12.10.2020, 08.01.2021 - The court found the respondent guilty of deliberate and wilful disobedience of the orders and undertakings given to the court. The respondent was sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment but was given the opportunity to purge the contempt by making the entire payment of arrears within five days, failing which he was directed to appear for surrender on a specified date.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landlord, filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of possession and arrears of rent. The respondent failed to comply with the undertakings given to the court and continued to occupy the premises without vacating or making payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondent guilty of deliberate and wilful disobedience of the orders and undertakings given to the court.
Issues: Violation of undertakings, non-compliance with court orders, contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The respondent's deliberate and wilful disobedience of court orders and undertakings rendered him liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Final Decision: The respondent was sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment but was given the opportunity to purge the contempt by making the entire payment of arrears within five days, failing which he was directed to appear for surrender on a specified date.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
1. This contempt petition has been filed alleging that the Respondent has wilfully violated the terms of settlement and the undertaking given to the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as recorded in the orders dated 06.02.2020 and 19.06.2020, passed in CM(M) 1344/2019. The Respondent vide orders dated 06.02.2020 and 19.06.2020 sought extension of time to vacate the tenanted premises and pay the admitted arrears of rent and current use and occupation charges.
2. Since, the Respondent failed to pay the admitted arrears of rent, the Coordinate bench vide order dated 19.06.2020 in CM APPL. 12301/2020 filed in CM(M) 1344/2019, directed that the Respondent will be liable to pay interest at 7% per annum on the outstanding arrears of rent. The said direction was issued after giving a further opportunity to pay the arrears of rent by 31.08.2020.
3. The Respondent herein during pendency of this petition, admitted the violation of the undertakings given to the Coordinate Bench and thereafter, yet again undertook on 24.09.2020, 12.10.2020 and 08.01.2021 in these proceedings to abide by the orders and undertakings dated 06.02.2020 and 19.06.2020.
4. The matter was adjourned on 21.03.2023 by this Bench at the request of the Respondent to enable him to clear the admitted arrears of Rs.33,10,058/-(due as on 01.03.2023). The matter was adjourned again on 21.04.2023; however, the Respondent has failed to make any payment to the Petitioner.
5. The Petitioner herein has during the course of hearing handed over an updated calculation sheet, computing the total outstanding dues as on 01.05.2023 at Rs. 33,40,557/-with interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
Brief facts
6. The Petitioner herein is a landlord, who had filed suit against the Respondent for recovery of possession as well as arrears of rent of second floor and servant room in basement of the property bearing no. W-9, Greater Kailash -II, New Delhi-110048 (`subject property'). The said suit was decreed in favour of the Petitioner on 13.03.2019 and the Respondent became liable to be ejected.
6.1. However, since the Respondent, tenant, did not hand over the possession of the subject property, the Petitioner preferred an execution petition bearing No. 461/2019 before the ADJ, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Executing Court'). An application seeking stay of the execution proceedings was filed by the Respondent, however, the same was rejected by the Executing Court.
6.2. The Respondent herein did not challenge the decree dated 13.03.2019 and the same had attained finality. However, the Respondent approached this Court by way of CM(M) 1344/2019, assailing the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Executing Court declining to stay the execution petition. In the said petition, the Respondent sought extension of time to vacate the premises until 31.12.2020 and gave an unambiguous undertaking to the Court that he will continue to pay use and occupation charges of Rs. 1.80 lakhs per month, during the period of occupation of the subject property. The relevant extract of the order dated 06.02.2020 reads as under:
"1. The Petitioner - Mr. Manoj Kapoor and Mr. Mukesh Saigal, the brother/power of attorney holder of the Respondent are present in Court today. During the course of hearing, after consulting with their respective counsels, they have arrived at a settlement on the following terms and conditions:
1) The Respondent agrees that the Petitioner shall be entitled to remain in possession of the second floor and servant room in the basement of property bearing No.W-9, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi till 31st December, 2020. On or before 31st December, 2020, the Petitioner undertakes to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the Respondent.
XXX XXX XXX
3) The Petitioner agrees and undertakes to pay the future monthly use and occupation charges of Rs.1.80 lakhs per month on or before the 10th of every month, without fail, withou
Deliberate and wilful disobedience of court orders and undertakings can lead to punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Repeated breaches of undertakings and non-compliance with court orders can lead to a finding of contempt, and leniency may be misunderstood as weakness.
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....
Repeated non-compliance and disobedience of court orders and undertakings constitute contempt of court.
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.
Consent decrees are enforceable under contempt law and violations constitute contempt regardless of their nature of acceptance.
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.