Delhi High Court
S.Manjit Singh vs Gian Chand & Anr. on 21 April, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Cont. Cas. (C) No.295 of 2009
% 21.04.2010
S. MANJIT SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.P. Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
GIAN CHAND & ANR. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Vssudha V. Indukar, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Reserved on: 4th March, 2010
Pronounced on: April 21, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. Vide order dated 7th September, 2009, this court had held respondent No.1 guilty
of civil contempt and punished him by simple imprisonment for term of three months
apart from a fine of Rs.1,000/-. However, respondent No.2 despite several opportunities
had not filed reply to the contempt proceedings. This court vide aforesaid order had held
that he was hand in glove with respondent No.1 (his brother) and was equally guilty of
contempt. Respondent No.2 was asked to appear in person and he appeared in person on
7th September, 2009, and accepted notice of initiation of contempt proceedings. He was
given time to file reply to the show cause notice as to why he should not be punished for
colluding with his brother/respondent No.1 for deliberate and willful non-compliance of
the undertaking given by his brother/respondent No.1 to the court on 26th September,
2008 in R.F.A. No.809 of 2006.
2. Respondent No.2 has filed reply to the show cause notice and it only shows that
respondent No.2 was not at all repentant of his contemptuous action and of his collusion
with his brother of violation of the undertaking. This court vide order dated
7th September, 2009 had discussed in detail the stand taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2
regarding a part of the premises, the possession of which was handed over by respondent
No.1 to respondent No.2, after giving an undertaking to the court that he shall surrender
the possession of the entire premises to the petitioner. This court after considering the
material relied upon by respondent No.2 and reply had come to a conclusion that there
was collusion between respondent Nos.1 and 2 to frustrate the order of court. However,
the attitude of respondent No.2 still remains of defiance and he does not seem to be
repentant at all.
3. I, therefore, consider that respondent No.2 was equally guilty of contempt and was
liable to the same sentence as awarded to his brother/respondent No.1, for deliberate and
willful disobedience of the order of the court and undertaking given by respondent No.1
to the court in collusion with his brother respondent No.2. I, therefore, hold him guilty of
civil contempt and punish him with civil imprisonment for a term of three months apart
from a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Warrant of arrest of respondent No.2 be issued and he be
lodged in Tihar Jail for undergoing the sentence.
4. The petition stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
APRIL 21, 2010
'AA'
