Wilful breach of an undertaking in a consent decree can constitute civil contempt; limitation runs from knowledge of the breach.

A wilful breach of an undertaking accepted by the SC and embodied in a consent decree constitutes civil contempt, because the obligation is owed to the Court and is not displaced by the mere availability of execution proceedings. The respondents' later settlement concerning the same properties violated their undertaking not to alienate or encumber them, and civil contempt was established. On limitation, where the complainants were not earlier aware of the offending act and learnt of it only later in execution proceedings, the contempt period runs from the date of knowledge. The petition was therefore held to be in time.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether breach of an undertaking incorporated in a consent decree amounts to civil contempt; (ii) whether the contempt petition was barred by limitation under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Issue (i): whether breach of an undertaking incorporated in a consent decree amounts to civil contempt.

Analysis: The respondents had undertaken not to alienate, encumber, or charge specified properties until satisfaction of the decree, yet later entered into a fresh settlement concerning the same properties. A consent decree does not merely create contractual obligations between the parties when it is founded on an undertaking given to the Court and accepted by the Court. Breach of such an undertaking strikes at the authority of the Court and is not answered by the mere availability of execution proceedings.

Conclusion: The breach of the undertaking amounted to civil contempt and was established against the respondents.

Issue (ii): whether the contempt petition was barred by limitation under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Analysis: The petitioners were not parties to the subsequent proceedings in which the inconsistent settlement was recorded and they asserted that knowledge of the offending conduct was gained only later during execution proceedings. In such circumstances, limitation is to be computed from the date of knowledge, and not from the date of the underlying act, where the aggrieved party had no earlier knowledge.

Conclusion: The contempt petition was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The respondents were found guilty of civil contempt for violating their undertaking to the Court, and the contempt proceeding was maintainable in time.

Ratio Decidendi: A wilful breach of an undertaking given to and accepted by the Court, even when embodied in a consent decree, constitutes civil contempt, and limitation for initiating such proceedings runs from the date of knowledge where the complainant was not earlier aware of the breach.

---