Sentenced for Contempt: Respondents Face 4 Months for Breaching Consent Terms, with Possible Reduction for Compliance.

The respondents were adjudged guilty of contempt of court for willfully breaching the undertaking in the consent terms and were sentenced to four months' imprisonment. The sentence included a provision for reduction if the respondents deposited the entire amount within three months after serving 15 days of imprisonment, thereby respecting the decree.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of contempt proceedings.
2. Breach of undertaking given to the Court.
3. Jurisdictional challenge to the Supreme Court's decree.
4. Limitation period for filing contempt proceedings.
5. Sentence for contempt of court.

Summary:

1. Initiation of Contempt Proceedings:
The Bank of Baroda filed a contempt petition against the respondents for non-compliance with a consent decree dated 28.7.1999, which required them to pay specified amounts in installments. The respondents defaulted on the payment, leading the petitioner to seek execution of the decree through the Court Receiver and the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bombay.

2. Breach of Undertaking Given to the Court:
The respondents had undertaken not to sell, mortgage, alienate, encumber, or charge certain properties until the decree was satisfied. However, they entered into a settlement in another suit (Summary Suit No. 4571 of 1996) with Oman International Bank, SAOD, offering the same properties under attachment, thereby violating the undertaking given to the Supreme Court.

3. Jurisdictional Challenge to the Supreme Court's Decree:
The respondents argued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that the Supreme Court's decree dated 28.7.1999 was without jurisdiction and a nullity. The Court held that such a legal plea does not normally amount to contempt, but in this case, it was seen as a deliberate attempt to create hurdles in the execution of the decree, constituting a willful breach of the undertaking.

4. Limitation Period for Filing Contempt Proceedings:
The respondents contended that the contempt petition was barred by limitation u/s 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Court noted that the petitioners learned about the consent decree in January 2001 during execution proceedings and filed the contempt petition within five months, thus it was not barred by limitation as per the law laid down in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian.

5. Sentence for Contempt of Court:
The Court emphasized the importance of respecting and protecting the dignity and authority of the Courts. Given the respondents' grossly contemptuous act and failure to deposit any amount as per the consent decree, the Court sentenced them to four months imprisonment. However, if they deposit the entire amount within three months after serving 15 days of imprisonment, the sentence would be reduced to the period already undergone.

Conclusion:
The respondents were found guilty of contempt of court for willfully breaching the undertaking given in the consent terms and were sentenced to four months imprisonment, with a provision for reduction upon compliance with the decree.

---