1. Breach of undertaking given to the court not to alienate property — Execution of sale deeds — Contempt proceedings under Section 2(b), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 837
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari - Appellant
Versus
Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (Deceased) Rep. By Lrs. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4955 of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 4869 of 2023
Decided On : 06-09-2023
Important Points
Wilful breach of an undertaking given by counsel on behalf of a client to the court constitutes civil contempt. Courts may declare contemptuous transactions void to nullify advantages gained. Beneficiaries are not necessary parties, and apologies may be rejected if the conduct is serious and damages judicial dignity.
Subject
Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.129, Art.142
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT: S.12, S.13, S.19, S.2, S.20
CONTRACT ACT: S.23
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT: S.52
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT: S.12, S.13, S.19, S.2, S.20
CONTRACT ACT: S.23
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT: S.52
Headnote
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19(1) - Civil Contempt - Deliberate and wilful disobedience of court order - Appellants held guilty for executing sale deeds despite a clear undertaking not to sell property until the main matter was resolved - Court validates High Court's cancellation of sale transactions as void due to contempt. (Paras 1-117)
(B) Undertaking to Court - Indicates that assurances given by advocates are binding on the party, with violation constituting civil contempt - Materiality of the undertaking emphasized in the context of ongoing litigation. (Paras 4, 12, 74)
(C) Legal Consequences - Transactions in breach of court orders are actionable; the court can declare these void to uphold the rule of law. (Paras 81-83)
(D) Apology - Unconditional apologies may mitigate consequences but not absolve responsibility; given the circumstances, the court deemed acceptance unwarranted. (Paras 99-114)
(B) Undertaking to Court - Indicates that assurances given by advocates are binding on the party, with violation constituting civil contempt - Materiality of the undertaking emphasized in the context of ongoing litigation. (Paras 4, 12, 74)
(C) Legal Consequences - Transactions in breach of court orders are actionable; the court can declare these void to uphold the rule of law. (Paras 81-83)
(D) Apology - Unconditional apologies may mitigate consequences but not absolve responsibility; given the circumstances, the court deemed acceptance unwarranted. (Paras 99-114)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, AOR Mr. Shantanu Parmar, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Adv. Ms. Devanshi Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivam Pundhir, Adv. Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiket A. Dave, Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv. Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Adv. Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Mr. Vijayanand Tripathi, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, AOR Mr. Shantanu Parmar, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Adv. Ms. Devanshi Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivam Pundhir, Adv. Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nachiket A. Dave, Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv. Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Adv. Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Mr. Vijayanand Tripathi, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether statement by counsel was an undertaking to the court — Validity of sale deeds — Necessity of impleading purchasers — Bona fides of apology. (Para 25 , 28 , 32 , 35 , 36 )
3. Analysis of wilful disobedience — Distinction between undertakings to parties vs. courts — Power to nullify contemptuous transactions — Nature of apology as an act of contrition. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 )
4. Wilful breach of an assurance by counsel on behalf of a client constitutes civil contempt; courts may declare contemptuous transactions void to maintain judicial majesty. (Para 76 , 77 , 88 , 116 )
5. Appeals dismissed — High Court order of punishment and cancellation of sale deeds upheld — Appellants directed to surrender and serve sentence. (Para 117 , 118 )
6. Does a statement made by an advocate on behalf of a client constitute an undertaking given to the court?
Yes, an assurance given by a lawyer on instructions from a client, upon which the court acts, is an implied undertaking to the court. Breach of such an undertaking constitutes civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (Para 69 , 71 , 73 , 76 , 77 )
7. Can a court declare transactions void in contempt proceedings even if they are not void ab initio under the Transfer of Property Act?
Yes, to maintain the majesty of law and nullify advantages secured through contumacious conduct, a court may declare contemptuous transactions void or issue directions to reverse them, ensuring the contemnor does not benefit from their defiance. (Para 80 , 88 , 89 , 116 )
8. Are third-party beneficiaries of a contemptuous transaction necessary parties to contempt proceedings?
No, contempt is a matter between the court and the contemnor. Third parties, including bona fide purchasers, have no locus to be heard as necessary parties in such proceedings. (Para 96 , 97 , 116 )
9. When is an apology in contempt proceedings likely to be rejected by the court?
An apology is rejected if it is not bona fide, is tendered as a legal trick to avoid responsibility, is belated, or if the conduct is so serious that it damages the institution's dignity. (Para 102 , 106 , 107 , 111 , 113 )
JUDGMENT :
J. B. PARDIWALA, J.
“When we speak of the 'rule of law' as a characteristic of our country, (we mean) not only that with us no man is above the law, but (what is a different thing) that here every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. Respect for law and its institutions is the only assurance that can hold a pluralist nation together. Any attempt to achieve solutions to controversies, however, ideologically and emotionally surcharged, not on the basis of law and through judicial institutions, but on the strength of numbers will subvert the fundamental values of our chosen political organisation. It will demolish public faith in the accepted constitutional institutions and weaken people's resolve to solve issues by peaceful means. It will destroy respect for the Rule of Law and the authority of courts and seek to place individual authority and strength of numbers above the wisdom of law.”
Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India , (1994) 6 SCC 442.
1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are the same; the parties are also same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. There are in all three appeals before us.
3. The Civil Appeal No. 4955 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2022 are statutory appeals under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act 1971’) filed by the contemnors who stood punished by the High Court whereas the Civil Appeal No. 4869 of 2023 is an appeal filed at the instance of the beneficiaries of contemptuous transactions with the permission of this Court. In other words, the appellants of Civil Appeal No. 4869 of 2023 are the purchasers of the suit properties from the contemnors. The beneficiaries of the contemptuous transactions are also before this Court as the High Court while holding the appellants of the two statutory appeals referred to above guilty of contempt for their deliberate and wilful disobedience of the undertaking given to the court also declared the sale transactions to be void.
STATUTORY APPEALS UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT , 1971
4. The appellants of the two statutory appeals have been held guilty of contempt by the High Court of Gujarat for their deliberate and wilful disobedience of the undertaking given to the concerned Court, which came to be recorded vide order dated 14.10.2015 passed in the Special Civil Application No. 16266 of 2013. The impugned order passed by the High Court holding the appellants guilty of contempt dated 13.07.2022 came to be passed in the Misc. Civil Application No.121 of 2018 filed by the respondents herein in the Special Civil Application No. 16266 of 2013.
5. The operative part of the impugned order passed by the High Court reads thus:
“ORDER
(i) We hold that accused Nos. 3.1 to 3.4 and accused No. 4 guilty of Contempt for their deliberate and wilful disobedience of the undertaking given to this Court which came to be recorded by order dated 14.10.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 16266 of 2013.
(ii) We impose cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on accused Nos.3.1 and 3.2 in lieu of sentencing them to imprisonment and in addition direct them to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each and the amount of fine shall be paid within a period of three weeks from today and in default thereof they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months.
(iii) We sentence accused Nos. 3.3, 3.4 and accused No. 4 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months.
(iv) It is declared that following sale deeds executed by accused Nos. 3.1 to 3.4 through accused no. 4 as power
