Breach of undertaking given to the Court constitutes contempt, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated in court orders.

1. This is an application under S.10 and S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (in short the 'Act') for committal proceedings against the respondents. The facts germane to the decision of this petition succinctly are that at the relevant time Shri G. L. Seenik was the sole proprietor of M/s. Indo Kenyan Industrial Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner'). The said proprietary concern of Shri G. L. Seenik is a perpetual lessee of a plot No. B - 18, Industrial Area, Phase - I, Maya Puri, New Delhi. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') is a private limited company and is carrying on Metal Forgings Industry. Its plants are situated on Plots No. B - 1 and B - 17, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi which are adjacent to each other. The aforesaid plot No. B - 18 of the petitioner firm is also contiguous to the said plots. In November, 1981 the Company instituted a suit against the petitioner, described as the sole proprietary concern of Shri G.L. Seenik, for permanent injunction restraining the latter from interfering with peaceful enjoyment of premises No. B - 18, which is in dispute, in any manner except by due process of law. It was averred that in 1976 Shri G. L. Seenik permitted the Company to use the front portion of Plot No.B - 18 for storage of goods, etc., as it was in need of more space on account of its expanding activities. However, Shri Seenik represented that he could not enter into any regular agreement of lease because of the prohibition by his lessor. Accordingly, the Company entered into the possession of suit premises bearing No.B - 18, Industrial Area, Maya Puri, New Delhi in the year 1976 and had been in continuous possession thereof without any let or hindrance by anyone. However, in August, 1981, the Director Investigation, Income - tax Department conducted a raid on the premises in dispute and put his seal on the godown of the Company in the plot in question pending verification of stocks, etc. The company filed a Civil Writ Petition in this court, being No. 1894 of 1981. In the course of hearing of the writ petition, a Division Bench of this court directed the Income - tax Authorities to stack the seized stocks of the Company in a corner of the godown on the plot in question till the completion of verification vide order D/-5th Nov., 1981. However, on 7th November 1981 Shri Seenik assisted by some other persons and police officials" appeared at the spot and threatened to dispossess the Company forcibly. The Company therefore prayed that the petitioner be restrained from dispossessing them except in due process of law.

2. The parties negotiated a settlement and moved an application D/-27th Nov. 1981 under O. 23, R. 3 read with S. 151 of the Civil P.C. for recording the compromise. It was inter alia agreed between the parties that the Company would continue to use the front courtyard of the plot in question as shown 'red' in the site plan marked 'A' as before and that the Company would vacate the plot in question on the expiry of 19th Nov. 1983 and it gave an undertaking to the court to that effect. The court recorded a joint statement of Shri R. K. Anand, respondent 4, who was then Deputy General Manager and authorised representative of the Company, Shri Surjit Singh General Attorney of Shri G. L. Seenik and counsel for the parties who testified to the correctness of the compromise (Ex.C / 1 in the suit) and agreed to abide by the same