Misguiding Court To Pass An Order With No Intention To Comply Amounts To Contempt Of Court : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held a man guilty of civil contempt after observing that he had misled the court to obtain an order that he never intended to comply with.

“A party, misguiding the Court to pass an order which was never intended to be complied with, would constitute an act of overawing the due process of law and, thus, commit contempt of Court.”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih observed.

The dispute originated from a licensing agreement (2014) for a property in Munnar, Kerala, where the Respondent defaulted on payments, leading to prolonged litigation, arbitration, and a settlement agreement (2017). In 2022, the Respondent undertook before the Supreme Court to pay Rs 172 lakhs in six monthly installments.When the Respondent failed to act on the undertaking, the Petitioner filed petition seeking action for civil contempt.

The Court held that this amounts to civil contempt. 

"After seeking an order from this Court where benefit has been conferred on the basis of the submissions of the Respondent-Contemnor, not complying therewith amounts to contempt of Court."

Founding the Respondent guilty of civil contempt, as despite the Court's order, he failed to pay the payment to the Appellant, despite having good income, the Court observed:

“from the very beginning till the very end the Respondent Contemnor has been taking the Court for a ride. The misuse of the process of Court with an intent to tarnish the image of judiciary, threatening the integrity, and the efficiency of the judicial system cannot be allowed to be overlooked and ignored in the garb of non-fulfilment of the directions because of now said to be faced financial constraints.”

“The Respondent-Contemnor cannot be allowed to go scot free after having taken this Court at a stage where his conduct leaves this Court with no option but to take strict action and to punish him for the contempt committed by him, i.e., non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide Order dated 07.11.2022. 40. This case, in our opinion, would not be one where mere imposition of fine would suffice. In the given facts and circumstances of the present case, we are convinced that the Respondent-Contemnor is liable to be punished for the contumacious conduct.”, the court added.

Resultantly, the Court imposed 3 months' imprisonment plus a ₹20,000 fine (with additional jail for default). Further, the Court granted 30 days to comply before punishment takes effect.

Case Title: M/S CHITHRA WOODS MANORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VERSUS SHAJI AUGUSTINE

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Click here to read/download the judgment