Dhruv Goyal vs Anand Perkesh
1991 Latest Caselaw 362 Del

JUDGMENT

P.K. Bahri, J.

(1) Notice to show cause was issued to defendants 2 to 4 as to why the proceedings for Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against them on their willfully not obeying the order of this Court dt. 29.5.84. Replies have been filed to this show cause notice. Smt. Neera Goyal, wife of late Shri Suresh Goyal and her two children Dhruv Goyal and Ritu Goyal had filed this suit for partition of properties, rendition of account and recovery of money. There exists a partnership firm M/s Anand Prakash Ravinder Kumar, which is not a party to the present suit. However, defendants 1 to 4 were partners of the said firm. Certain amounts belonging to the plaintiff stood deposited in the said firm and on 7.5.82 defendant No. 1 had given an undertaking to this court that interest accruing on the said deposits shall be paid to the pff. by deft. 1 regularly and he has been paying the said interest accruing on the said deposits to the pff. On 29.5.84, the Court had directed that deft. 1 to 4 should not only pay the arrears of interest but also pay the future interest regularly accruing on the said deposits belonging to the pff. Admittedly the interest amount has not been paid by deft. 1 to 4 since Nov, 1987. Deft. 1 has since expired.

(2) The present application was moved by the pff. for requiring the said deft. to comply with the orders of this court and on 7.3.1988, the Court directed deft. 2 to 4 to pay arrears of interest which amount came to about Rs. 17,500.00 up to the date of the order and failing which it was directed that show cause notice will stand issued to the deft. 2 to 4 to explain why the contempt of court proceedings be not initiated against them. Counsel for the deft. has argued that this initiation of contempt proceedings is barred by limitation and thus, notice should be discharged. Sec. 20, Contempt of Courts Act lays down that no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In the present case, deft. 2 to 4 are committing the contempt continuously by willfully not complying with the order for paying the interest on the said deposits. The interest was not be paid only once but was to be paid continuously. So, on the face of it, the initiation of contempt proceeding against deft. 2 to is not barred by limitation.

(3) Counsel for the deft. also tried to argue that no order requiring the defts. to pay the interest could have been made by the court as the said firm was not a party to this suit. This court cannot reopen this issue as the order has been made on 29.5.84, requiring defts. 1 to 4 to pay the interest which deft. 1 has undertaken to pay earlier.

(4) Under S. 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, a civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. This definition covers the present case because here deft. 2 to 4 are willfully disobeying the order of this court and thus. are prima facie guilty of having committed the civil contempt.

(5) In Sneh Lata Gupta vs. V.K. Mittal, 1986 Rajdhani Law Reporter 209, a direction was given to the co-owner and also to the tenant for depositing the rent. Both of them had willfully not complied with the order. The court had held that they are guilty of having committed the civil contempt. The learned counsel for deft. has made reference to Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir Bhasin, , wherein the Supreme Court has held that non-compliance of a compromise decree or a consent order would not amount to contempt of court. It was held that such orders could always be executed. In the present case there is no consent decree passed by this court. The subsequent order made by this court was not with consent which required deft. 2 to 4 to pay the interest accruing on the said deposits to the pff. This order is not executable as a decree. Hence, willful disobedience of such an order, in my opinion would be covered by the definition of civil contempt. So, this judgment does not help the case of the defts. in any manner.

(6) Reference is then made by counsel for the defts. to Hargovind Dayal vs. G.N. Verma. . I have gone through this judgment and I find that it has no applicability to the facts of the present case. The said case dealt with a criminal contempt and not with the civil contempt as is the present case. In view of the above discussion, I hold that prima facie defts. 2 to 4 have committed the civil contempt and thus, are liable to be punished u/S 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(7) I, hence, initiate the contempt proceedings against defendants 2 to 4 and require them to show cause as to why they should not be held guilty of Contempt of Courts Act and punished accordingly.

(8) The matter shall be decided by affidavits. Defts. 2 to 4 may file the affidavits within two weeks and the pffs. may file counter-affidavit within two weeks thereafter.