Deliberate And Wilful Non-Compliance Of Undertaking Is Contempt Under Contempt Of Courts Act: Rajasthan High Court
A single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench observed that breach of written undertaking given to the Court is contempt and is liable to be punished under the Contempt Courts Act, 1971. Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "As per Definition of civil contempt, described in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, the civil contempt means willful disobedience of...
A single bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench observed that breach of written undertaking given to the Court is contempt and is liable to be punished under the Contempt Courts Act, 1971.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "As per Definition of civil contempt, described in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, the civil contempt means willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. In the present case, the respondents have breached the written undertaking given to the Court. Therefore, they are prima facie guilty for committing contempt and liable to be punished under the Contempt Court Act, 1971.
In the present case, a contempt petition is filed alleging deliberate and willful non-compliance of the undertaking, given dated Oct 30, 2019 by the respondents-contemnors - Tulsi Meerchandani and Sehjanand - for vacating the rented shop and handing over the possession of rented shop on or before Oct 13, 2021, pursuant to the final judgment and order of Single Bench in 2019.
Notably, the respondents were summoned through bailable warrants and thereafter have appeared through advocate and filed reply to the contempt petition on 13 Dec, 2021. In the reply, it has been admitted that answering respondents furnished written undertaking dated 30 Oct, 2019 pursuant to the order of High Court dated 14 Oct, 2019, to vacate the rented shop to the petitioner before 13.10.2021 and the respondents are still ready and willing to hand over the peaceful possession to the petitioner/plaintiff.
The court observed that by apparent admission of the respondents in their reply dated Oct 30, 2019, it is more clear on the face of record that even till date of filing of the reply, the respondents have not vacated and delivered the peaceful possession to the petitioner, though they were under duty and obligation to vacate and hand over the possession before Oct 30, 2019.
While considering it just and proper to give an opportunity to respondents to purge the contempt, the court asked them to vacate and hand over the suit shop to the petitioner within a period of three days. The court added that If the respondents deliver and hand over the possession to the petitioner, the petitioner shall issue a receipt of receiving the possession, to the respondents. It was also added that the respondents shall produce the receipt of handing over the possession to the petitioner, before the next date albeit both respondents would remain present in person before this Court for the purpose of passing appropriate orders.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the respondents-contemnors have flouted the benefit granted to them by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2019 subject to furnishing undertaking to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of rented shop to the petitioner on or before 13.10.2021. He further argued that even till date the actual and physical vacant has not been handed over and therefore, the respondents at the face of record guilty for committing the contempt of Court.