Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondents were guilty of civil contempt for giving an undertaking to the Court while suppressing the true position regarding possession and sub-tenancy, and for using counsel's clarification to defeat execution of the eviction decree.
Analysis: Civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 requires wilful disobedience of a court order or wilful breach of an undertaking. The undertaking obtained time to vacate on the footing that possession would not be parted with or third-party interests created, while the record showed that the tenant company and its controlling persons were aware of and acted in support of a competing sub-tenancy claim. The clarification given on behalf of the company was treated as part of the same course of conduct. In these circumstances, the Court found that the undertaking was false to the knowledge of the respondents and that the conduct was calculated to mislead the Court and frustrate execution.
Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of contempt, and the High Court's refusal to proceed was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A false undertaking given to a court, coupled with conduct designed to suppress material facts and obstruct execution of its order, constitutes civil contempt.