RITA MARKANDEY versus SURJIT SINGH ARORA

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 27-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RITA MARKANDEY 
v. 
SURJIT SINGH ARORA 
SEPTEMBER 27, 1996 
(DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.) 
Contempt of Court Act 1971-Sections 2 (b), 2 (c) and 12-Agreement 
arrived at between palties regarding time for vacating the premises-Supreme 
Court embodied tenns of said agreement and granted time subject to the usual 
C undertaking to be filed by the respondent-Non filing of usual undeltaking by 
the respondent and failure to hand over vacant possession of the suit 
premises-Making deliberate attempts to impede the administration of justice 
by filing false affidavits-Held, the respondent not liable for contempt of 
breach of the order granting time based on agreement since he has not filed 
D the undertaking-However, Respondent held guilty of criminal contempt of 
Coult for having not only made dellberate attempts to impede the administra-
tion of justice but also for delaying the delivery of possession by filing false 
affidavits-Apology tendered 
before Court not genuine and 
bonafide--Respondent in custody for some days pursuant to Court's 
order-Fine of Rs. 2000 imposed. 
E 
F 
G 
In a rent control matter, the respondent filed an appeal before this 
Court with the leave of this Court. It was dismissed with a direction that 
as agreed to by both the Counsel, time to hand over vacant possession was 
granted tiil 31st March 1995 subject to the usual undertaking to be filed 
by the respondent. 
On the respondent's failure to ltand over the vacant possession of 
the suit premises within the time granted the present contempt petition 
was filed. 
Disposing of the petition, this Court 
HELD: 1. The respondent did not comply with the ·order of this 
Court dated October 5, 1994 and. that his assertion in both his affidavits 
filed on September 28, 1995 and .January 8, 1996 that he had handed over 
vacant possession of the suit premises to the petitioner on October 14, 1995 
H was false for, as the report of the Rent Controller discloses, such posses-
56 
RITAMARKANDEYv. S.S. ARORA 
57 
sion was given only on March 7, 1996. [64-D] 
A 
-:"\>' 
2.1. Law is settled that if any party gives an undertaking to the court 
to vacate the premises from which he is liable to be evicted under the orders 
of the Court and there is clear and deliberate breach thereof it amounts to 
civil contempt but since, in the present case, the respondent did not file lWY 
B 
undertaking as envisaged in the order of this Court, the question of his 
being punished for breach thereof does not arise. However, even in a case 
where no such undertaking is given, a party to a litigation may be held liable 
for such contempt if the Court is induced to sanction a particular course 
of action or inaction on the basis of the representation of such a party and 
the Court ultimately finds that the party never intended to act on such c 
representation or such representation was false. [64-F-G] 
2.2. However, in the instant case, the respondent herein cannot be 
held liable for contempt on this score because the order in question clearly 
indicates that it was passed on the basis of the agreement between the 
--
parties and not on the representation of the respondent made before the D 
Court. It was the petitioner who agreed to the unconditional extension of 
time by four weeks for the respondent to vacate and this Court only 
" 
embodied the terms of the agreement so arrived at, in the order. Thus, the 
respondent cannot in any way be held liable for contempt for alleged 
breach of the above order. [65-A-C] 
E 
3. By filing false affidavits the respondent had not only made 
deliberate attempt to impede the administration of justice but succeeded 
in his attempts in delaying the delivery of possession. Hence, the respon-
dent is held gnilty of criminal contempt of Court. [66-D] 
F 
Dhanajay Shanna v. State of Haryana, [1995] 3 SCC 757, referred to. 
..,, 
4. The apology tendered by the respondent is not genuine and 
bonafide for in his earlier affidavit filed on January 8, 1996 he had also 
offered a similar unconditional apology but falsely reiterated that he had G 
vacated the suit premises on November 14, 1995. The record however shows 
that following his arrest pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued by 
this Court, the respondent was in custody for some days till he was 
released on bail under orders of this Court. Considering this aspect of the 
matter and the fact that he has now handed over vacant possession of the 
suit premises, this Court

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