DR. (MRS.) ROSHAN SAM BOYCE versus B.R. COTTON MILLS LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 06-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. (MRS.) ROSHAN SAM BOYCE 
A 
v. 
B.R. COTION MILLS LTD. AND ORS. 
APRIL 6, 1990 
(M.H. KANIA, KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 2(b)-Civil Contempt-
Nature of proceeding-Punishment of Contemnor-Standard of proof 
required. 
,.# 
Constitution of India, 
1950: Article 142( ])-Jurisdiction of 
~· _ -_ 
Supreme Court-Exercise of in a contempt proceeding in order to do 
justice. 
c 
, 
x 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 
1947: Eviction of tenant-Time granted for vacating premises-Under-
taking to give vacant possession filed-Declaratory suit for sub-tenancy 
D 
filed and stay obtained thwarting execution of eviction.Jecree-In order 
to do justice, Court directing land/rod to be put in possession of suit 
premises pending disposal of declaratory suit. 
The appellant-landlord obtained a decree of eviction of respon-
dent No. 1 company from the suit premises. Aggrieved, respondent No. 
E 
1 filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. Dismissing the Petition, 
the High Court granted eight weeks' time to respondent No. I for 
vacating the suit premises, subject to the filing of an undertaking that it 
will not part with the possession of, or create third party interest in, the 
suit premises in any manner what..l'ever. After some correspondence 
respondent No. 3, by an affidavit, filed the required undertaking on 
F 
behalf of respondent No. 1 but without mentioning that the respondent 
No. l had not already parted with possession of the suit premises or 
created any third party interest therein. Later, counsel for respondent 
No. l clarified that when the undertaking stated that respondent No. l 
would not part with possession it meant that respondent No. l was in 
possession. But, in the meantime, respondent No. 2 Chairman of 
G 
respondent No. l Company filed a suit claiming a declaration that he 
was the lawful sub-tenant and the decree for possession was a nullity 
and obtained an injunction, thus preventing the appellant from execut-
ing the decree. Thereupon, the appellant filed a petition for contempt 
before the High Court praying that the respondents should be punished 
under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The High 
H 
Court rejected the petition .. 
381 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
In the appeal before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the 
A landlord-appellant that the High Court was in error in holding that no 
contempt was established against the respondents, that.the undertaking 
clearly implied that respondent No. l was in possession of the premises 
and was in a position to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the 
B 
c 
same after eight weeks, which was also made clear from the clarifica-
tion given by counsel for respondent No. l that this assurance/under-
taking was false, as by that time respondent No. 2, had already filed 
a suit claiming sub-tenancy from respondent, that the record disclosed 
that respondents No. l and 2, were acting in collusion with a view to 
defeat the decree obtained by the appellant and to prevent the execution 
of the decree and that the resolution of the respondent No. l under 
which respondent No. 2 was claiming sub-tenancy was fabricated and 
antedated. 
It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that before a Court 
could take any action for contempt, it must be strictly establis.hed that 
the contempt had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, as an action 
o for contempt was in the nature of a criminal proceeding. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: . I The Proceedings in the contempt are quasi-criminal in 
nature, and law of contempt has to be strictly interpreted, and the 
E 
requirements of that law must be strictly complied with before any 
person can be committed for contempt. However, where there is patent 
_,.(
dishonesty writ large on the face of the record, the law does not require 
that this Court should sit back with folded hands and fail to take any 
action in the matter. In exercise of its jurisdiction under clause (l) of 
Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court may pass such decree or 
F 
make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case 
~
or matter pending before it. [391G-H; C-DJ 
1.2 In the instant case, respondent No. I gave an undertaking 
X 
based on an implication or assumption which was false in its knowledge 
and to the knowledge of respondent No 2. Respondent No. 2 was equally 
G 
instrumental in 

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