Wilful breach of a court undertaking, coupled with suppression and misleading representations, amounts to contempt of court.

Wilful breach of an express undertaking given to the Court, especially where a party suppresses material facts and makes misleading assertions to gain advantage, constitutes contempt of court. The respondents had agreed to furnish security and comply with interim directions in arbitration, but failed to provide the ordered bank guarantee, did not seek modification of that direction, and later advanced a proposal concerning property that was not shown to be a subsisting asset. Their shifting stands and nondisclosure of encumbrances and ownership claims supported a finding of deliberate misrepresentation. The Court held them guilty of contempt and allowed the petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by failing to comply with the undertaking to furnish bank guarantee and by making misleading representations about the Secunderabad property.

Analysis: The parties had agreed to arbitration on the footing that the respondents would furnish security and comply with interim directions. The respondents did not furnish the bank guarantee ordered by the arbitrator, failed to obtain modification of that direction, and later proposed sale of property that was not shown to be their subsisting asset. The record also showed suppression of material facts about encumbrances and ownership claims, and the respondents shifted their stand at different stages. In such circumstances, the conduct went beyond mere non-compliance with an executable order and amounted to a breach of a clear undertaking given to the Court, coupled with misrepresentation intended to obtain advantage.

Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of contempt of court, and the petition was allowed.

Final Conclusion: Wilful breach of an express undertaking to the Court, supported by suppression and misleading assertions, was treated as contempt warranting punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: Wilful breach of an express undertaking given to the Court, especially when accompanied by suppression of material facts and false or misleading representations to secure a benefit, constitutes contempt of court.

---