Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Nirmal Jindal - Appellant
Versus
Shyam Sunder Tyagi - Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 92 of 2022
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Court underscored the importance of upholding judicial authority by penalizing a Respondent for willfully violating court orders, reinforcing the rule of law in society.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2(b) and 12 - Allegations of willful violation of court orders regarding the construction of a boundary wall - Contempt petition filed due to demolition of boundary wall by Respondent with unauthorized force - Court found that Respondent acted willfully to flout orders - Respondent sentenced to 45 days imprisonment and fined Rs. 2,000/- (Paras 6, 12, 13)
(B) Rule of Law - Importance of judicial authority and the responsibility of the judiciary in maintaining respect for the law - Court underscored the need to uphold the dignity of judicial orders to ensure public confidence in the legal system (Paras 11, 12).
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner sought protection for her property via a contempt petition after the Respondent unlawfully demolished a boundary wall built per court orders. The Respondent argued misunderstanding of property boundaries.
Findings of Court:
The Respondent's actions showed a blatant disregard for court orders, constituting contempt and undermining judicial authority.
Issues: Whether the demolition was a willful act of contempt and the appropriate penalty for such conduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that defiance of court orders by the Respondent undermines the rule of law and the authority of the judiciary, warranting a penal response.
Result: Respondent found guilty of contempt, sentenced to 45 days imprisonment and fined.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. alleged willful violation of court orders (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. police protection and compliance to court orders (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's requirement for immediate action and compliance (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. importance of upholding court authority and respect (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. sentencing for contempt of court (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. (Oral)--The instant contempt petition has been filed for the alleged willful violation of the orders dated 15.10.2020 and 21.12.2020, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7356/2021 & CM No. 33867/2020.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant contempt petition are as follows:
a) Aggrieved by the non-consideration of her application for putting up a boundary wall to secure her property in terms of the revenue land records, the Petitioner herein approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7356/2021.
b) Notice was issued on the writ petition and a Status Report was filed by the Police. The Status Report has been reproduced in the order dated 15.10.2020. After considering the Status Report, this Court on 15.10.2020 passed the following order:
"5. The photographs show that the petitioner's property is unprotected and can be walked into and put to misuse by anybody. It is in nobody's interest that the place be open to mischief. Therefore, in the interest of the parties, it should be secured in such a manner that all mischief is obviated. The petitioner is ready and willing to give an undertaking to the effect that if the boundary wall is secured, she will remove it in terms of such order as may be passed by the Deputy Commissioner Revenue, in her appeal and applications which are pending for more than half a decade.
6. In the circumstances, let the Deputy Commissioner dispose-off her appeal and/or her application for securing her property in terms of the above, preferably within a period of 2 months from today. The parties may be heard through video conferencing, through counsel."
c) As proper police protection had not been granted to the Petitioner, the Petitioner moved an application, being CM APPL. 33867/2020, seeking directions. The said application was considered by this Court on 21.12.2020 wherein this Court, in terms of the order dated 15.10.2020, directed the Police to grant protection to the Petitioner at the time of construction of the boundary wall. Relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
"4. The learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that the boundary wall has not been constructed as the petitioner was awaiting due action by the respondents.
5. The Court would note that assurance was given by the learned ASC for the State that status quo apropos the petitioner's possession of the property would be secured. Since the petitioner is stated to be in possession of the property by the learned ASC for the State, let the boundary wall be constructed to secure the property in terms of the previous order as soon as possible, with due intimation to the learned ASC for the State. Albeit, the same would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, in particular those of R-6, who states that some possession has been given to him.
6. The objective of the aforesaid exercise is that the property be secured from mischief. The appropriate undertaking as indicated in para 5 of the aforesaid order, shall be furnished by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) and a copy thereof shall be filed in this Court within one month.
7. The learned ASC for the State states that because of COVID-19 pandemic related administrative exigencies, the demarcation could not be carried out. Therefore, he seeks and is granted 3 more weeks' time to comply with the order, with due notice to the parties. An endeavour shall also be made to dispose-off the petitioner's appeal within a period of 5 months from today"
d) It is stated that the boundary wall was constructed on 24.12.2020, and in terms of the orders dated 15
