BABU RAM GUPTA versus SUDHIR BHASIN & ANR.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 12-04-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• i 
' 
685 
BABU RAM GUPTA 
v • 
• 
SUDHIR BHASIN & ANR. 
April 12, 1979 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KosHAL JJ.J 
Conten1pt of Courts Act 1971-S. 2(b)-Consent order passed at the 
instance of 1he parties and undertaking given' by one of the parties-El]tct of 
breacll-DiJtincti.on between-When a1nounts to contempt of Court . 
A 
B 
Pending the decision of a dispute between the -parties referred to an arbi~ 
C 
trator, the High Court passed \Vith the agreement of the parties a consent 
order appointing a receiver. 
The Court'~ ·order directed that the receiver 
should te.ke charge of the property forthwith from the appellant and submit 
periodical reports to the Court regarding the running of the business. 
With-
out making an express direction to the appellant that the property in his 
possession should be handed over to the receiver, the High Court directed 
the appellant not to interfere with the receiver in the running of the business 
D 
and that the appellant should 2:ive to the Teceiver all co·operation that the 
receiver might require . 
In a petition filed before the High Court ,the respondent alleged that by 
failing to hand over possession of the property to the receiver, in terms 
of the consent order the appellant had committed breach of the undertaking 
given to the court and thereby committed an offence punishable under 
E 
S. 2 (b) o[ the Contempt of Courts Act. 
The High Court held the appellant to be guilty of contempt of court and 
sentenced him to undergo civil imprisonment. 
In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that there was no breach 
o:f the undertaking on his part because he had given no express or implied 
F 
undert-aking to. handover possession of the disputed property to the receiver. 
Allowing the appeal 
HEID : 1. The act of the appellant in not complying with the terms of 
the consent order did not amount to an offence under S. 2(b), however im· 
proper or reprehensible his conduct might be. [693 G] 
2. When a persOn appearing before a court file5 an 'application or affidavit 
giving an undertaking to the court or when he clearly and expressly gives 
an oral undertaking v..·hich is incorporated by the court in its order and fails 
to honour that undertaking then a wilful breach of the undertaking would 
amount to an offence punishable under the Act. An undertaking given by one of · 
the parties should be carefully construed by the Court to find out the nature 
and extent of the undertaking given by the pen1on concerned, It is not open 
to the Court to assume an implied undertaking- when there is none on the record. 
f69QC-D. 691 GJ 
H 
\ 
686 
SUPRl!MI! COURT REP OR TS 
[1979] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
3. While it is the duty of the court to punish a person who tries to obstruct 
B 
c 
D 
the course of justice or brings into disrepute the 
institution of judiciary this 
power has to be exercist.d not casually or lightly, but with great care and 
circumspection. 
Contempt proceedings serve a dual ,purpose of vindication 
of the public interest by punishment of the contumacious conduct and coercion 
to compel the contemner to do what the law requires of him. [691 H, 692 C] 
4.r The reason why a breach of clear undertaking amounts to contempt of 
court is that the contemner by making false representation would obtain the 
benefit and if he failed to honour that undertaking he plays a serious fraud 
on the court itself and thereby obstructs the course of justice and brings the 
judicial institution into disrepute. 
The same cannot, be said of a consent 
order or a compromise decree \vhere the fraud is played not on the court but 
on one of the partie1. The offence committed is qua a party and not qua the 
court and therefore the very foundation for proceeding for contempt of court 
is completely absent ia •uch ca.es. [693 D-E[ 
5. If it is held 
t~at non-compliance of a compromise decree or consent 
order would amount to contempt of court the provisions of the Code of Civil 
Procedure relating to execution of decrees may not be resorted to at all by 
the parties. [693 CJ 
6. In the in!tant case no application or affidavit or undertaking was given 
by the appellant that he '\\"OUld cooperate with the receiver or that he would 
hand over possession of the property to the receiver. The consent order did 
not incorporate expressly that any such undertaking had been given either 
by the appellant or by his lawyer before the Court. In the absence of such 
an u~1dertaking it cannot 
b'e said 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.