TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Rent Control Tribunal is a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (ii) Whether the respondent's statement recorded before the Tribunal constituted an undertaking to the court, and whether its breach amounted to civil contempt.
Issue (i): Whether the Rent Control Tribunal is a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Analysis: The Tribunal was vested with appellate powers, authority to decide disputes judicially, power analogous to a civil appellate court, and its decisions had finality and binding force. The statutory scheme also showed that it exercised judicial power of the State and was guided by civil procedure where the Act and Rules were silent. On that basis, it possessed the attributes of a court and fell within the supervisory reach of the High Court under the contempt jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was a court subordinate to the High Court and its orders could support contempt proceedings.
Issue (ii): Whether the respondent's statement recorded before the Tribunal constituted an undertaking to the court, and whether its breach amounted to civil contempt.
Analysis: The statement was made in court in the course of proceedings, was acted upon by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal, and was incorporated into the order granting time. The promise to surrender possession was not a mere private arrangement between parties but a solemn representation made to secure the court's indulgence. The expression of an undertaking in court, even without the words "to the court", is understood in legal practice as an undertaking to the court when the context shows that the court accepted it and fashioned its order on that faith. Wilful non-compliance with such an undertaking falls within civil contempt.
Conclusion: The respondent gave an undertaking to the court and his wilful breach amounted to civil contempt.
Final Conclusion: The contempt petition succeeded and the respondent was found guilty of civil contempt for breach of the undertaking to vacate the premises, with punishment imposed by fine and a contingent sentence of civil imprisonment on further default.
Ratio Decidendi: A statement made in open court and accepted as the basis of the court's order is an undertaking to the court, and wilful breach of such an undertaking constitutes civil contempt even if the words "to the court" are not expressly used.
TaxTMI 
