The Delhi High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad while holding a party guilty in a contempt case, said that courts should not hesitate in "wielding the sword of contempt" when grappling with "wilful disobedience." (Navin Soni v. Munish Soni & Ors)
The bench observing that the absence of rule of law or the presence of utter disregard for the rule of law propels a country towards inevitable ruin, said that it is the duty of the Court to take a strict view when there is non-compliance of judicial orders.
Facts of the case
The instant contempt petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the Respondent No.1 for violating the undertaking given to the Court in the Order passed by this Court in CS (OS) 2077/2006.
In the suit, the parties, who were related to each other, entered into a compromise. Under the said compromise, the Respondents agreed to handover the ground floor of the premises to the Petitioner on or before 30.09.2017. Apart from this, the Defendants therein were made to pay a sum of Rs.1 Crore under the said compromise.
An application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC was filed. The said application was disposed of vide Order dated 21.09.2012 and the suit was decreed on the terms of the compromise and the parties were directed to remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.
Consequently, a Relinquishment Deed was executed in favour of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner got the premises in question converted into freehold by paying conversion charges to the DDA and a conveyance deed was registered in favour of the Petitioner. Since the Respondents did not vacate the premises in question, the contempt petition was filed.
Contention of the Parties
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner took the court through the Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the parties, the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, the affidavits filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the receipt of Rs.1 Crore that was paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents. He submitted that the undertaking given to this Court stands violated. He further submits that the Respondents were the duty bound to vacate the premises on or before 30.09.2017 which they have failed to do so. The Counsel relying upon a judgement of this Court in Som Datt Enterprises Limited v. Vijay Cable Industries and Ors, (2016 SCC OnLine Del 6089), the learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that the execution of a decree does not take away a decree holder’s remedy of alleging contempt.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents contended that the instant contempt proceedings cannot be entertained for violation of a consent order when there are provisions for execution of the same under Order 21 CPC. He further contended that Clause (n) of the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC specifies that in case the possession is not handed over, the Petitioner would be entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1 Crore, along with interest at the rate of 12%.
He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir Bhasin, 1980 (3) SCC 47 wherein it was stated that there exists a clear cut distinction between a compromise arrived at between the parties or a consent order passed by the Court at the instance of the parties, and a clear and categorical undertaking given by any of the parties. He stated that the judgment clarifies that in case of the violation of the compromise arrived at between the parties by the consent order, there is no question of contempt and the decree can be executed.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset observed, "There is nothing on record to show that the Respondents have approached this Court by contending that a fraud has been played on them. A receipt has also been filed to show that the payment of Rs.1 Crore has been received when the Order was passed by the Court decreeing the suit on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The receipt of Rs.1 Crore has also been acknowledged in the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 in the case. The Respondents were also present in the Court when the learned Counsel for the parties stated before the Court that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties out of their own free will, volition, consent and without undue influence."
The bench noted that the submission of the Respondents that the lawyer who appeared for the Respondents had appeared for the Petitioner as well in the same case is a complete afterthought and is a mischievous argument which cannot be entertained by this Court. The bench noted that the Respondents kept quiet for five years. They did not raise any issue regarding any fraud played on them for five years. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has further stated that the Petitioner has criminal antecedents. The Court observed that the so-called FIR registered against the Petitioner has resulted in the discharge of the Petitioner. In any event, the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner would be irrelevant for the purpose of contempt proceedings.
The bench observed, "the process of due course of administration of justice must remain unimpaired. Attempts to circumvent or undermine judicial decisions need to be viewed seriously in order to ensure that the functioning of our country is unhindered, especially during turbulent times. It is only the rule of law which not only cements the civilised functioning of a country, but also drives a country towards progress and development. Absence of rule of law or in the presence of utter disregard for the rule of law propels a country towards inevitable ruin. In light of this, it is the duty of the Court to take a strict view when there is non-compliance of an Order of the Courts, and Courts should not hesitate in wielding the sword of contempt when grappling with a situation pertaining to wilful disobedience."
The bench holding the respondents guilty of contempt remarked, "the instant case, a receipt of Rs.1 Crore signed by both the parties, which was also recorded in the Order dated 21.09.2012, was filed in the Court. This Court notes that there was no whisper on the part of the Respondents stating that they have not received the remaining sum of Rs.80 lakhs since the Order dated 21.09.2012 and that the said grievance has only been raised for the first time when the instant contempt petition was filed. The feeble contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Respondents were not literate and could not understand the consequences of the consent decree cannot be accepted at this point as it is observed that the Respondents were educated enough to comprehend the undertaking that they had given to the Court. This Court does not appreciate the defences that are being raised by the Respondents to subvert the authority of the Courts."
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
