Recently, the Supreme Court examined whether contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC could be sustained for violating an injunction order, even if later set aside. The case involved an appellant who, despite an undertaking before the Trial Court, alienated portions of the suit property. The High Court found this to be wilful disobedience and imposed penalties. The appellant challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, arguing lack of authorization for the undertaking and contending that the dismissal of the injunction should nullify contempt action.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an undertaking given by the appellant before the Trial Court, stating that they would not alienate the suit property to any third party. The Trial Court incorporated this undertaking into its order in November 2007 and repeatedly extended the injunction, restricting the appellant from transferring the property. Despite this, between 2007 and 2011, the appellant sold portions of the property, violating the court’s order. The respondents, alleging wilful disobedience, filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC seeking action against the appellant. However, the Trial Court dismissed the application, ruling that wilful disobedience was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Subsequently, the Trial Court also dismissed the original suit, citing ambiguity in the property description and extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. The respondents then appealed to the High Court, which reversed the Trial Court’s findings. The High Court held that the appellant had wilfully violated the undertaking and was guilty of contempt of court, imposing penalties, including imprisonment and attachment of property. Challenging the High Court’s decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the injunction order was later set aside and should not result in contempt proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the undertaking given to the Court regarding the non-alienation of the subject property lacked proper authorization from the client. It was argued that a lawyer, while representing a client, cannot unilaterally provide an undertaking without explicit instructions, as the lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature. The petitioner further asserted that the undertaking in question had far-reaching implications and that no binding effect should be attached to it in the absence of express authority from the client.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent opposed this argument, highlighting that the undertaking was voluntarily provided in July 2007 and was subsequently reiterated on August 13, 2007, before being incorporated into an order of the Court. It was emphasised that the petitioners never sought to have the order discharged within a reasonable time, despite having the opportunity to do so. The respondent argued that the continued violation of the undertaking justified the contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
Observations of the Court:
The Apex Court extensively analyzed the implications of violating an injunction order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and whether contempt action survives if the injunction order is later set aside. The Court emphasized that when a party voluntarily provides an undertaking, it assumes a legal obligation to comply with it. The appellant's argument that the undertaking was unauthorized was rejected, as no effort was made to have it discharged. The Court observed, “Had the situation been that the said undertaking was without requisite authority, the clients were perfectly within their rights to seek discharge of that order; however, no such step was taken.”
The Court clarified that non-compliance with an injunction order does not become irrelevant merely because the injunction was later set aside. The rationale is that court orders must be followed while they are in force, regardless of their future fate. The Court stated “When there has been an express violation of an order of a Court, as is in the present case, the exercise of contempt jurisdiction cannot be faulted with.”
The Court relied on Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, reaffirming that contempt jurisdiction exists to ensure compliance with judicial orders and preserve the integrity of the legal system. The Court noted, “The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions.”
The Supreme Court underscored that litigants cannot assume that an order ceases to bind them merely because they believe it to be incorrect or invalid. Until a court formally sets aside an injunction order, compliance is mandatory. The Court held “A party cannot decide on its own that an injunction order has lost its efficacy and proceed to violate it. Such actions amount to a challenge to the authority of the Court.”
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s contempt finding but modified the punishment. Given the appellant’s age (68 years), the Court removed the three-month civil imprisonment while enhancing the compensation from ₹10 lakhs to ₹13 lakhs, with 6% simple interest from August 2, 2013. The property attachment remained undisturbed.
Case Title: Lavanya C. & Anr. vs. Vittal Gurudas Pai since deceased by Lrs. & Ors.
Case no: SLP(C) No.13875 OF 2021
Citation: 2025 Latest Caselaw 222 SC
Coram: Justice Pankaj MIthal, Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Radhakrishna S. Hegde, Prakash Chandra Sharma, Rajeev Singh (AOR)
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Vikram Hegde (AOR), Abhinav Hansaraman
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, click here
Picture Source :
