Civil contempt requires clear proof of a court undertaking; status quo orders do not bar regulated use of an open site.

Civil contempt based on breach of undertaking requires clear proof that an undertaking was given to the Court, formed part of the proceedings, and induced the Court's order or forbearance. On the record, the alleged oral assurance was not shown with reasonable certainty to be a court undertaking, so breach of undertaking was not proved. A later status quo direction, made after the cabins had already been removed and the site was in municipal possession, was construed as preserving the existing position and not barring regulated use of an open site. No contempt was established on that basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents committed civil contempt by wilfully breaching an undertaking said to have been given to the Court against demolition of the cabins; (ii) whether the subsequent conduct amounted to breach of the status quo order and contempt.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents committed civil contempt by wilfully breaching an undertaking said to have been given to the Court against demolition of the cabins.

Analysis: Civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 requires wilful disobedience or wilful breach of an undertaking given to the Court. An oral assurance can constitute an undertaking only if it is clearly shown that it was given to the Court, forms part of the proceedings, and was made to obtain a favourable order or forbearance from the Court. The material on record did not establish with reasonable certainty that the statement attributed to counsel was an undertaking to the Court rather than an assurance between the parties. The contemporaneous order did not record a clear undertaking, the surrounding circumstances showed that the respondents were not seeking relief from the Court, and the conduct was more consistent with a response to the exigencies of the hearing than with contemptuous defiance.

Conclusion: Civil contempt on the basis of breach of undertaking was not proved.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent conduct amounted to breach of the status quo order and contempt.

Analysis: The status quo direction was made after the cabins had already been removed and the site had come into the Corporation's possession. The order was understood as preventing further demolition or construction so that the position could be preserved, not as barring every reasonable use of an open site already in possession of the Corporation. Since no further construction was shown and the site was only put to regulated use, the conduct did not amount to breach of that order.

Conclusion: No contempt was made out on account of breach of the status quo order.

Final Conclusion: The notices were discharged, while costs were imposed on the responsible municipal officers, and no contempt liability was ultimately fastened on the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: A contempt founded on breach of undertaking requires clear proof that an undertaking was given to the Court and acted upon by the Court in sanctioning a course of action; absent such proof, and where the order merely preserves the position without prohibiting reasonable use already lawfully available, contempt is not established.

---