False affidavits in judicial proceedings can amount to criminal contempt when they obstruct justice; an apology may not excuse the conduct.

The SC held that no contempt arose from the extension of time to vacate the premises because that relief was granted on the basis of an agreement between the parties, not any undertaking by the respondent; the limited contempt enquiry could not be expanded into a separate factual dispute over possession of other portions of the house. However, filing false affidavits stating that possession had been delivered on an earlier date amounted to criminal contempt because the false statements obstructed execution and interfered with the due course of justice. The unconditional apology was rejected as not genuine or bona fide, and punishment by fine was imposed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondent was liable for contempt for breach of the order granting time to vacate the premises despite not furnishing the undertaking; (ii) whether the filing of false affidavits regarding delivery of possession constituted criminal contempt; (iii) whether the unconditional apology warranted discharge from punishment.

Issue (i): whether the respondent was liable for contempt for breach of the order granting time to vacate the premises despite not furnishing the undertaking.

Analysis: The extension of time to vacate was granted on the basis of an agreement between the parties and not on any false representation by the respondent. In the absence of an undertaking, no contempt for breach of undertaking arose. The limited contempt enquiry also could not be enlarged to adjudicate the separate factual dispute regarding alleged occupation of other portions of the house.

Conclusion: The respondent was not liable for contempt on the ground of breach of undertaking or breach of the order granting time.

Issue (ii): whether the filing of false affidavits regarding delivery of possession constituted criminal contempt.

Analysis: A false affidavit in judicial proceedings obstructs and interferes with the due course of justice and falls within criminal contempt. The record and the Rent Controller's report showed that the respondent's statements that possession had been delivered on 14 October 1995 were false and that possession was actually delivered only on 7 March 1996. Such conduct delayed execution and impeded administration of justice.

Conclusion: The respondent was guilty of criminal contempt.

Issue (iii): whether the unconditional apology warranted discharge from punishment.

Analysis: The apology was not accepted as genuine or bona fide, particularly because a similar apology had earlier been tendered while false assertions were reiterated. Although imprisonment was not considered necessary in view of subsequent delivery of possession and earlier custody, punishment by fine was considered appropriate to mark the wrong and deter conduct.

Conclusion: The apology did not justify discharge, and punishment by fine was imposed.

Final Conclusion: The contempt petition succeeded in part: the respondent was exonerated on the narrow theory of breach of undertaking but held guilty of criminal contempt for filing false affidavits, and was punished with fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Filing false affidavits in judicial proceedings that obstruct or delay the course of justice amounts to criminal contempt, and an apology will not protect the contemnor unless it is genuine and bona fide.

---