Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
|
The Supreme Court has ruled that willful breach of an undertaking given to the court constitutes contempt. The Supreme Court held that wilful disobedience of the Court's undertaking can be considered contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that an undertaking granted by a party should be viewed in the circumstances in which it was offered, including I the benefits that came to the undertaking party; and (ii) the detriment/injury incurred by the counter party. The bench, on the other hand, raised reservations about an earlier ruling that said there is no difference between wilful violation of the provisions of a consent decree and wilful violation of a decree entered after adjudication.
The Delhi High Court found a husband and wife guilty of contempt of court and sentenced them to three months of simple jail and a fine of Rs.2000 in this case. The proceedings were started by the Court after they failed to follow through on an undertaking they gave to the Court in exchange for a conditional stay. Doubts Rama Narang Judgment The court noted that in Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir Bhasin, the court had noted the distinction between an order passed on consent terms and an order passed solely on the basis of an undertaking given to court and the distinction between a person playing fraud on the court thereby obstructing the course of justice and a person playing fraud on one of the parties. Doubts about Rama Narang's decision The court pointed out that in Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir Bhasin, the court distinguished between an order entered on consent terms and one entered solely on the basis of an undertaking given to the court, as well as between a person defrauding the court and obstructing the course of justice and a person defrauding one of the parties.
An act of contempt cannot be justified solely on the basis of subsequent behaviour. The bench went on to say that an undertaking granted by one party should be viewed in the light of I the benefits accrued to the undertaking party; and (ii) the detriment/injury incurred by the other party. Taking into account the facts of the case, the bench stated that it could not find fault with the High Court's decision to hold the petitioners in contempt. As a result, the court upheld the guilty verdict but reduced the punishment from three months to the time already spent in prison.
Tags : #CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971 #SUPREME COURT #BREACH OF UNDERTAKING #JUSTICE INDRA BANERJEE
Allow Cookies!By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.