Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
DHARMESH SHARMA
Drishti Software Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Valaya Clothing Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Dharmesh Sharma, J. - This order shall decide a petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,[The Act] by the petitioner company seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent no. 1 who is the Director of respondent no. 2 company( hereinafter mentioned as the respondents/ contemnors) for wilful disobedience of the final order and decree dated 29.05.2017 in C.S. (Comm.) No. 182/2017.
2. Briefly stating, the petitioner, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Delhi, filed a suit through its authorized representative against the respondents /contemnors bearing case number C.S. (Comm.) No. 182/2017 titled M/s. Drishti Software Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Valaya Clothing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. for recovery of rent, damages, mesne profits and for permanent injunction. Admittedly, a Lease Agreement was entered into and the same was executed by the parties on 21.02.2011 w.e.f. 15.08.2010 for an initial period of three years whereby the petitioner leased out the premises in question to the respondent company at a monthly rent of Rs.5,91,045/
A civil contempt requires a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court, and in this case, there was no grounds to assume wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents.
The court ruled that civil contempt requires clear evidence of willful disobedience, which was not established due to the respondents' financial difficulties.
Civil contempt proceedings require specific notice of allegations to ensure fair opportunity for defense; penalties must reflect intent and context, particularly when apologies are tendered.
Wilful disobedience is required for contempt, and alternate remedies should be exhausted before invoking contempt jurisdiction.
Companies or juristic entities cannot be punished for contempt; specific individuals must be named for compliance responsibilities.
The court emphasized that contempt proceedings should only be initiated when there is a clear case of wilful disobedience of a court's order and that the respondents followed due process to extend cr....
The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnor has willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the court's order. If the disobedience is the result of some compelling c....
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
Listen Article