LexM/S SITARAM ENTERPRISES versus PRITHVIRAJ VARDICHAND JAIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 414 : 2024 INSC 685 M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain (Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 196-197 of 2024) In (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12081-12082 of 2023) 09 September 2024 [J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Eviction decree was passed against the respondent-tenant (contemnor). Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by him vide order dtd. 06.06.2023 and he was granted nine months time expiring on 06.03.2024 to vacate the suit premises subject to filing of undertaking/affidavit. Undertaking/affidavit was filed belatedly and the contemnor continued to litigate filing Review Petitions and applications seeking extension of time which were dismissed. He deliberately did not appear in the Court despite specific directions issued for personal appearance or on service of bailable/non-bailable warrant. Fresh non-bailable warrants issued, contemnor was produced in the court. Possession of the suit premises not delivered to the landlord in compliance with the order dtd. 06.06.2023. Whether the contemnor deliberately and willfully did not comply with the order of this Court dated 06.06.2023 and thus, guilty of the contempt of Court. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – Contemnor, if guilty of deliberate and willful non-compliance of the directions of this Court dated 06.06.2023 to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the landlord: Held: Yes – Contemnor was unable to explain his conduct – He also sought a month’s time to vacate the suit premises – After dismissal of the SLP, Review Petitions and applications for extension of time to vacate the suit premises, said prayer is unreasonable and a deliberate attempt to not to comply the directions issued by this Court to which he furnished an undertaking at a later stage – Contemnor deliberately and willfully did not comply with the order of this Court dated 06.06.2023 and flouted the same and thus, [2024] 9 S.C.R. 415 M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain guilty for non-compliance of the directions of this Court – However, contemnor being an old aged person, in the interest of justice a week’s time granted to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord, otherwise the order dated 06.06.2023 be complied with by taking forceful possession from him – Further directions issued. [Paras 13-15, 17] Constitution of India – Article 129 – Contempt powers: Held: Power to punish for Contempt of Court’s order is vital to safeguard the authority and efficiency of the judicial system – Contempt powers are integral to maintaining the sanctity of judicial proceedings-power of this Court to punish for contempt is a cornerstone of its authority, integral to the administration of justice and the maintenance of its own dignity – This power is essential for upholding the rule of law and ensuring due compliance by addressing actions that undermine its authority, obstruct its proceedings, or diminish the public trust and confidence in the judicial system. [Para 2] List of Acts Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Article 129 of the Constitution of India; Contempt of Court; Contempt powers; Eviction; Landlord; Tenant; Contemnor; Deliberate, Willful non-compliance of the directions of Court; Willful disobedience; Contemptuous conduct; Undertaking/affidavit Personal appearance; Bailable/non-bailable warrant. Case Arising From INHERENT JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 196-197 of 2024 In Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12081-12082 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2023 of the Supreme Court of India, Delhi in SLP (C) No. 12081-12082 of 2023 With Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 198-199 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12083-12084 of 2023 416 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Advs. for the Petitioner. Nityanand Singh, Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Ms. Radhika Goel, V. V. Manoharam, Ms. Joohi, Saurabh Upadhyay, Prakash Kumar Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order “Disregarding a Court’s order may seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold.” 1. Contempt of court is a serious legal infraction that strikes at the very soul of justice and the sanctity of legal proceedings. It goes beyond from mere defiance of a Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.