Wilful breach of an undertaking to the Court can amount to contempt, though imprisonment may be reduced on equitable grounds.

Wilful breach of an undertaking given to secure judicial protection can amount to contempt where the conduct shows lack of bona fides and an intention to mislead the Court. The petitioners obtained protection against dispossession on the basis of their undertaking, but later issued post-dated cheques beyond the promised date, allowed them to be dishonoured, and advanced a false explanation, which supported the finding of contempt. The contempt finding was upheld. Although the conviction stood, the Court reduced the sentence because part of the imprisonment had already been undergone and the relevant properties had been sold, so the period already suffered was treated as sufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners' failure to honour the undertaking given to the Court and their subsequent conduct amounted to contempt of court; (ii) whether the sentence imposed for contempt warranted interference.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners' failure to honour the undertaking given to the Court and their subsequent conduct amounted to contempt of court.

Analysis: A wilful breach of an undertaking to the Court may amount to contempt where the undertaking is given to obtain a benefit from the Court and the conduct shows absence of bona fides. The undertaking in this case was part of the basis on which the petitioners obtained protection against dispossession. Their later conduct in issuing post-dated cheques beyond the promised date, allowing them to be dishonoured, advancing a false explanation, and being exposed by the investigation, supported the finding that the undertaking was not made in good faith and was intended to mislead the Court.

Conclusion: The finding of contempt was upheld against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed for contempt warranted interference.

Analysis: Although the contempt finding was sustained, the petitioners had already undergone a part of the sentence and the properties in question had been sold. In these circumstances, the Court found that the period of imprisonment already suffered would meet the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The sentence of three months' simple imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone.

Final Conclusion: The contempt conviction was maintained, but the custodial punishment was moderated to the imprisonment already suffered by the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Wilful breach of an undertaking to secure judicial relief, when accompanied by conduct showing absence of bona fides and an intention to mislead the Court, constitutes contempt of court; however, the sentence may be modified on equitable considerations if the circumstances so justify.

---