IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA versus IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 207 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
207
IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA
Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021
JULY 11, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Contempt of Court – Tendering
of affidavits and undertaking containing false statement, if amounts
to criminal contempt – On facts, custody of child given to the father,
Kenyan citizen with Indian origin, with visitations rights given to
the mother – Father submitted to the jurisdiction of Indian courts in
his affidavits and undertook to honour and comply with the orders
of the Court – However, did not comply and inspite of several
summons and orders, did not appear before Court nor brought the
son to India; and also obtained orders of this Court by practising
fraud upon the Court – Therefore, the Court recalled its earlier
judgment passed in favour of the father and in suo moto exercise of
power, initiated proceedings in contempt jurisdiction against the
father – Held: A person who makes a false statement before the
Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with
the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court –
Court not only has the inherent power but it would be failing in its
duty if the alleged contemnor is not dealt with in contempt
jurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court – Prima facie
observation that the father was guilty of having committed criminal
contempt of court apart from the contempt for violating express
undertakings given to the courts, including this Court – Thus, held
guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act.
While further listing the matter, the Court
HELD: 1.1 While considering whether the conduct of the
contemnor-father was fraudulent or not, this Court observed that
it would be the duty of this Court to nullify the effect and impact
of the orders which were obtained after practising fraud upon the
Court. This Court, therefore, recalled the Judgment dated
28.10.2020 and the Order dated 08.12.2020. At the same time,
non-disclosure of material facts by the contemnor at the relevant
junctures were also prima facie found to be contumacious.
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 207
207
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
Therefore, the instant proceedings in the contempt jurisdiction
were initiated suo moto by this Court. [Para 12][222-C-D]
1.2. A person who makes a false statement before the Court
and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the
administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court. In
such circumstances, the Court not only has the inherent power
but it would be failing in its duty if the alleged contemnor is not
dealt with in contempt jurisdiction for abusing the process of the
Court. [Para 15][224-G; 225-A]
1.3. The essential features of the matter as culled out in
paragraph 34 of the Order dated 07.10.2021 were relied upon to
arrive at a prima facie observation that the father was guilty of
contempt of Court. Though notice was issued to the father, no
response has been tendered. The material on record clearly shows
violation on part of the father. The observations made in the order
dated 7.10.2021 were on the basis of record. Having considered
the entirety of the matter, the father is guilty of having committed
criminal contempt of court apart from the contempt for violating
express undertakings given to the Courts, including this Court.
The father is held guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
[Para 16][225-B-C]
1.4 Though the instant proceedings can be taken to logical
conclusion and order of sentence can be awarded even in the
absence of the contemnor, final opportunity is given to the father
to present himself before this Court on 22.07.2022 at 3.00 pm
along with his son. He would then have an opportunity to advance
appropriate submissions on the issue of punishment to be awarded
to him. It would also be open to the contemnor to purge himself
of contempt in which case a sympathetic view may be taken in
the matter. For securing the presence of the contemnor and his
son before this Court and for effective implementation of the
Orders issued by this Court, the Union agencies including the
Central Bureau of Investigation shall have and shall exercise all
the powers, not necessarily restricted to the directions issued in
the Order dated 07.10.2021. [Para 17, 18][225-D-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
209
In the matter of Anil Panjwani (2003) 7 SCC 375 :
[2003] 3 SCR 1179; Dhananjay Sharma v. State of
Haryana (1995) 3 SCC 757 : [199

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