Back
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Ram Kishan – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
1. The Petitioners are brothers of Respondent No. 1 and the present petition has been filed in view of the willful non-compliance by the Respondent No.1 of the Deed of Compromise dated 10.09.2015 (`Compromise Deed'), which was filed before this Court along with an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') in TEST.CAS. No. 19 of 2013; and accepted by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2015. The Court in its order dated 17.09.2015 directed that the Petitioners herein and Respondent No. 1 shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the said Compromise Deed.
2. The Respondent No. 2, since deceased, was the wife of Respondent No. 1 and the pleadings primarily state that Respondent No. 2 during her lifetime obstructed the compliance of the terms and conditions of the Compromise Deed.
3. However, even after the death of Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 has taken the express stand that he does not intend to comply with the terms and conditions of the Compromise Deed.
4. The facts and legal proceedings which, led to the execution of the Compromise Deed are as under:
4.1. The Petitioners and the Respondent No.
Civil contempt involves willful disobedience of a court order, requiring intentional actions with knowledge of consequences; negligence is not sufficient for contempt.
The court emphasized that parties must adhere strictly to the terms of a Compromise/Settlement Agreement in execution matters, especially concerning construction compliance and potential penalties.
The significance of respecting undertakings given to the court and the consequences of persistent breach of consent decrees in property disputes.
Compromise/Settlement Agreement - Suit for possession, recovery of mesne profit and damages - Direction issued - As per terms of Clause iv of Compromise/Settlement Agreement, respondent was required ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise deed, once recorded by the court, is lawful and binding, and a subsequent suit challenging the compromise decree is not maintaina....
The court upheld the compromise order, finding no evidence of coercion, and directed the respondent to execute a sale deed for the entire property after regularisation.
Breach of undertaking given to the Court constitutes contempt, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in court orders.
The undertaking given to the Court binds the party, and failure to comply with it constitutes civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
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.
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
