BALWANTBHAI SOMABHAI BHANDARI versus HIRALAL SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR (DECEASED) REP. BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 1064 · Decided: 06-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
BALWANTBHAI SOMABHAI BHANDARI
v.
HIRALAL SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR (DECEASED) REP. BY 
LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4955 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2023 
[J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issues for consideration: Whether the wilful breach of an assurance 
in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel/ advocate on behalf of his 
client to the court would amount to “civil contempt” as defi ned u/s. 2(b) of 
the Contempt of Court Act, 1971; whether the said undertaking could be 
said to have been given to the court; whether the contempt court has the 
power to declare any contemptuous transaction non est or void; whether 
the benefi ciaries of a contemptuous transaction have a right to be heard in 
the contempt proceedings on the ground that they are necessary or proper 
parties as they are bona fi de purchasers of the suit property for value without 
notice; and whether the apology tendered by the contemnors deserves to 
be accepted. 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s. 19 – Statutory appeals under 
– Statement made by the counsel appearing for the contemnors before 
the High Court in the form of an undertaking upon instructions of the 
clients that the property would not be sold till the disposal of the main 
petition – However, despite the undertaking, the appellants proceeded 
to execute sale deeds in favour of diff erent parties and thereby, wilfully 
disobeyed the order passed by the High Court – Contemnors held 
guilty of contempt by the High Court and the sale transactions held to 
be void – Correctness:
Held: High Court did not commit any error in passing the impugned 
judgment and order – Undertaking was given to the High Court and the 
breach or disobedience would attract the provisions of the 1971 Act. [Paras 
116 and 117]
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 1064 : 2023 INSC 805
1064
1065
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s. 2(b) – Expression ‘wilful 
disobedience’ – Meaning of – Wilful breach of an assurance in the form 
of an undertaking given by a counsel/advocate on behalf of his client 
to the court, if would amount to ‘civil contempt’ as defi ned u/s. 2(b): 
Held: Expression “wilful” means act or omission which is done 
voluntarily or intentionally and with the specifi c intent to do something 
which the law forbids or with the specifi c intent to fail to do something the 
law requires to be done, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard 
the law – It signifi es a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad 
motive or purpose – Assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a 
counsel/advocate on behalf of his client to the court, the wilful breach or 
disobedience of the same would amount to ‘civil contempt’ as defi ned u/s. 
2(b) of the 1971 Act . [Paras 56 and 116(i)]
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s. 2(b) – Term Undertaking – 
Meaning of – Undertaking by the counsel, if undertaking given to the 
court:
Held: Every undertaking given by a party to a litigation may not be an 
undertaking to the court – There exists a distinction between an undertaking 
given to a party to the lis and the undertaking given to a court – Undertaking 
given to a court attracts the provisions of the 1971 Act whereas an 
undertaking given to a party to the lis by way of an agreement of settlement 
or otherwise would not attract the provisions of the 1971 Act – Breach of 
an undertaking given to the other party may not constitute the contempt of 
court – However, whether a particular undertaking is an undertaking to the 
court or to the opposite party depends upon the facts and circumstances of 
each case and the language used – On facts, the undertaking could be said 
to have been given to the court – Wilful breach of an assurance in the form 
of an undertaking given by a counsel/advocate on behalf of his client to 
the court would amount to “civil contempt” as defi ned u/s. 2(b) . [Paras 72, 
73, 76-77 and 116(ii)]
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – Contempt of court – Transfer of 
suit property in contempt proceedings – Power of the contempt court 
to declare any contemptuous transactions non est or void: 
BALWANTBHAI SOMABHAI BHANDARI v. HIRALAL 
SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR (DECEASED) REP. BY LRS. & ORS. 
1066
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Held: Though the transfer of the suit property pendente lite may not 
be termed as void ab initio yet when the court is looking into such transfers 
in contempt proceedings the court can defi nitely declare such transactions 
to be void in order to maintain the majesty of law – A

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