NOORALI BABUL THANEWALA versus K.M.M. SHETTY AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 20-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

NOORALI BABU1.- THANEWALA 
v. 
K.M.M. SHETTY AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 20, 1989 
[S. MUKHARJI, CJ. AND V. RAMASWAMI, J.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1961: Breach of Injunction or undertak-
ing given to Court-Misconduct amounting to contempt-Punishment 
by imprisonment of fine. 
The Petitioner-landlord filed a suit No. 213 of 1970 for eviction 
against the first respondent and four others in the court of Civil Judge, 
Senior Division, Thane. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The 
first respondent alone filed an appeal before the District Court. The 
appeal was dismissed confirming the eviction. Thereafter the first 
respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay which 
was also dismissed. The first respondent then filed Civil Appeal 
No. 2628 of 1980 in this Court which was dismissed by this Court on 
18.8.1987. However at the request of the appellant this Court had 
allowed him to continue to be in possession and carry on the business till 
31.3.89 subject to the appellant and all his employees in the business 
filing an usual undertaking in the Court that they will hand over and 
deliver vacant possession of the premises on the expiry of the period 
mentioned above and will go on depositing the mesne profits until pos-
session is delivered. In pursuance of this order an undertaking was filed 
by the first respondent as also by persons shown as his employees and 
staying in the premises. 
Sometime in the beginning of 1989 one Raghuram A. Shetty 
Second respondent in this Petition filed Civil Suit No. 306 of 1989 in the 
Thane Civil Court for a declaration that the decree for eviction 
obtained in respect of the premises in question in civil suit No. 213 of 
1970 cannot be executed against him and for a permanent injunction 
against the Petitioner herein. He also moved an application for a 
temporary injunction from executing the said decree. The Thane Civil 
Court granted a temporary injunction as prayed. That is how the 
Petitioner herein filed this contempt petition both against the original 
tenant K.M.M. Shetty and the second respondent-the Plaintiff in Civil 
Suit No. 306of1989. 
After discussing in detail the various developments of the case 
561 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
brought about by the first respondent as well as by the 2nd respondent 
herein, this Court directed that the order granting injunction against 
the Petitioner from executing the eviction decree against the 2nd respon-
dent shall not be operative and that the Petitioner is entitled to execute 
the decree for eviction against all persons who are in possession of the 
property. 
While holding the first respondent guilty of committing contempt 
by wilful disobedience of the undertaking given by him in this court, the 
Court, 
HELD: Breach of an injuction or breach of any undertaking given 
C 
to a Court by a person in civil proceedings on the faith of which the 
Court sanctions a particular course of action is misconduct amounting 
to contempt. [568F] 
The remedy in such circumstances may be in the form of a direc-
D lion to the contemnor to purge the contempt or a sentence of imprison-
ment or fine or all of them. [568F] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
When a court accepts an undertaking given by one of the parties 
and passes an order based on such undertaking, the order amounts in 
substance to an injunction restraining that party from acting in breach 
thereof. [5680 I 
The breach of an undertaking given to the Court by or on behalf 
of a party to a civil proceeding is, therefore, regarded as tantamount to 
a breach of injunction although the remedies were not always identical. 
For the purpose of enforcing an undertaking that undertaking is treated 
as an order so that an undertaking, if broken, would involve the same 
consequences on the persons breaking that undertaking as would their 
disobedience to an order for an injunction. [5680-E] 
In the light of this Court's finding in the instant case, that there 
was a breach of the undertaking mere imposition of imprisonment or 
fine will not meet the ends of justice. There will have to be an order to 
purge the contempt by directing the first respondent-contemnor to de-
liver vacant possession immediately and issuing necessary further and 
consequential directions for enforcing the same. [568G I 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petition 
(C) No. 13066 of 1989. 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 2628 of 1980. 
N.B. THANEWALA v. K.M.M. SHEITY [V. RAMA

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