2023 (1) TMI 1440 - HC - Indian Laws

Respondent sentenced to three months imprisonment for contempt, willful breach of undertakings, and obstructing judgment execution

Delhi HC held respondent guilty of contempt for willful breach of undertakings in a possession suit and abuse of legal process to obstruct judgment ... Contempt for willful breach of the undertakings - Suit for possession - abuse of the legal process to obstruct the execution of a judgment and decree - HELD THAT:- This Court is aware that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised with utmost caution. In so far as the order on sentence is concerned, as Respondent no.1 contemnor has already been held guilty for contempt and considering his conduct, as aforesaid, this Court sentences Respondent no.1 contemnor, Mr. Ankur Jain to undergo three (3) months simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. The Registrar General of this court is directed to take necessary steps to have the convicted contemnor taken into custody and cause him to be sent to Central Jail, Tihar under appropriate warrant of commitment for undergoing the sentence awarded as above. Conclusion - Judicial orders must be obeyed and that abuse of the legal process will not be tolerated. The present contempt petition and all the pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether Respondent No. 1, Mr. Ankur Jain, is guilty of contempt for willfully breaching undertakings given to the court on 18.07.2018 and 01.08.2018.Whether the actions of Respondent No. 1 and his family members constitute an abuse of the legal process to obstruct the execution of a judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017.What should be the appropriate punishment for the contempt committed by Respondent No. 1Rs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Contempt for Willful Breach of UndertakingsRelevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered the undertakings given by Respondent No. 1 on 18.07.2018 and 01.08.2018, which were accepted by the appellate court with the condition that non-compliance would lead to contempt proceedings.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found that Respondent No. 1 failed to comply with the undertakings to deposit the decretal amount and mesne profits, thereby breaching the undertakings given to the court.Key evidence and findings: The court noted that despite extensions, Respondent No. 1 did not fulfill his obligations, and his actions, including misleading communications to the IRP, indicated a willful disregard for the court's orders.Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles of contempt law, emphasizing that judicial orders must be obeyed at all costs, and found Respondent No. 1 guilty of contempt.Treatment of competing arguments: Respondent No. 1 argued financial incapacity and ongoing bankruptcy proceedings as reasons for non-compliance. The court rejected these arguments, noting that similar submissions had been previously dismissed.Conclusions: The court concluded that Respondent No. 1 willfully breached the undertakings and showed disregard for the judicial process.Issue 2: Abuse of Legal ProcessRelevant legal framework and precedents: The court examined the legal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 1 and his family to obstruct the execution of the decree.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found that the actions of Respondent No. 1 and his family, including initiating multiple legal proceedings, were deliberate attempts to obstruct the execution of the judgment.Key evidence and findings: The court highlighted the series of legal maneuvers by Respondent No. 1 and his family, including objections filed by Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd., as evidence of abuse of the legal process.Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles of abuse of process, finding that the Respondent's actions were aimed at delaying the execution of the decree.Treatment of competing arguments: Respondent No. 1 claimed that he did not personally file objections in the executing court. The court dismissed this argument, noting the involvement of his family members.Conclusions: The court concluded that Respondent No. 1 and his family abused the legal process to deny the Petitioner possession of the suit premises.Issue 3: Appropriate Punishment for ContemptRelevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, emphasizing the importance of compliance with judicial orders.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court considered the lack of sincerity in Respondent No. 1's apology and the repetitive nature of his arguments.Key evidence and findings: The court noted the absence of genuine contrition from Respondent No. 1 and his continued attempts to justify non-compliance.Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles of sentencing in contempt cases, emphasizing the need for deterrence.Treatment of competing arguments: Respondent No. 1's apology was deemed insincere, and his financial incapacity argument was rejected.Conclusions: The court sentenced Respondent No. 1 to three months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with an additional 15 days of imprisonment in case of default.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The court emphasized, 'Disobedience of orders of a court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests.'Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that judicial orders must be obeyed and that abuse of the legal process will not be tolerated.Final determinations on each issue: The court found Respondent No. 1 guilty of contempt for willful breach of undertakings, determined that he and his family abused the legal process, and imposed a sentence of imprisonment and a fine.