SHYAM SAHNI versus ARJUN PRAKASH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 19-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
117
SHYAM SAHNI
v.
ARJUN PRAKASH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2210 of 2020)
MARCH 19, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – Deposit of passport to ensure presence
and compliance of the order of the Court – Appellant filed a civil
suit seeking declaration, possession, permanent injunction and also
for partition of the suit property owned by his late mother – Mother
of the appellant had constructed a main building having ground
floor and first floor – According to respondent no. 1, the said
property was equally divided by mother of appellant between her
son-appellant and her daughter (respondent no. 1’s mother) – The
Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 02.06.2008 granted
interim injunction restraining the respondent no.1 and his father
from alienating or creating 3rd party interest in the suit property –
Thereafter, a Company formed by respondent no. 1, his wife and
his father, took a term loan from a Bank and first floor of the said
suit property was created as a secondary collateral security – Both
respondent no. 1 and his father gave undertaking in the Court that
they will clear the charge created on the suit property in 4 months –
However, they failed to comply the undertakings given by them –
Thereafter, various contempt applications were filed against
respondent no. 1 and his father, which were followed by repeated
undertakings and the same were not complied with – The Single
Judge of the High Court directed respondent no. 1 to surrender his
passport vide order dated 26.05.2017 to ensure his presence and
his compliance of the order of the Court – However, Division Bench
of the High Court set aside the said order of the Single Judge of the
High Court – On appeal, held: Since repeated undertaking were
filed and the same were not complied with, the Single Judge of the
High Court directed respondent no. 1 to surrender his passport –
The said order was passed to ensure the presence of the first
respondent and compliance of the order of the Court – It cannot be
said that the Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction or committed
an error in ordering surrender of the passport – In order to ensure
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 117
117
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
the presence of the parties in the contempt proceedings, the Court
is empowered to pass appropriate orders including the surrender
of passport – The Single Judge had not ordered impounding of the
passport – The Single Judge had directed respondent no. 1 to deposit
his passport in the Court – The Division Bench was not right in
setting aside the order of the Single Judge – The order of the Single
Judge of the High Court directing to deposit his passport is
confirmed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The short point falling for consideration is
whether respondent No.1 is to be proceeded for contempt and
whether the Single Judge was right in directing the deposit of
first respondent’s passport. Of course, on 15.07.2013, father of
respondent no.1 and respondent No.1 filed an undertaking that
they shall clear dues of Bank of India and the suit property shall
be cleared of all charges/encumbrances within a period of four
months and that they shall make arrangement of the loan amount
to be paid to the Bank of India from other moveable and
immoveable properties. Subsequently also, respondent No.1 and
his father filed an undertaking before the Court. Having filed the
undertaking, it was required of the first respondent to keep up
to his undertaking filed before the Court. On behalf of respondent
No.1, his counsel submitted that respondent No.1 was making
genuine efforts to pay the amount to the Bank and clear the charge
on the property; but due to unavoidable circumstances, they could
not clear the charge over the suit property. As pointed out earlier,
father of respondent no.1 was suffering from illness and passed
away within one week after the order was passed on 20.10.2015.
[Para 24][128-D-G]
2. Since repeated undertakings were filed and the same
were not complied with, Single Judge directed respondent No.1
to surrender his passport. The said order was passed to ensure
the presence of the first respondent and compliance of the order
of the Court. It cannot be said that the Single Judge exceeded
the jurisdiction or committed an error in ordering surrender of
the passport. In order to ensure the presence of the parties in
the contempt proceedings, the Court is empowered to pass
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
119
a

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