LexSMT. LAVANYA C & ANR. versus VITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DESEASED BY LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 450 : 2025 INSC 325 Smt. Lavanya C & Anr. v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deseased By LRs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13999 of 2024) 05 March 2025 [Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Trial Court holding the appellants not guilty of wilful disobedience of their undertaking given to the Court. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – When – Appellants gave undertaking before the Trial Court to not alienate the property which was the subject matter of the suit – Respondents filed application alleging violation thereof – Trial Court held that the Appellants were not guilty of wilful disobedience of the undertaking given by them – Order set aside by High Court – Correctness: Held: Plea of the appellants that the undertaking to not alienate the subject matter property was given by the lawyer without requisite authority, not accepted – The undertaking in question was given in July 2007 and reiterated in August 2007 –Trial Court made such an undertaking into an order of the Court in November 2007, which was extended at regular intervals – The application for violation of the undertaking/order of the Court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A was made in 2011 i.e., after a period of four and a half years – Had the undertaking been without requisite authority, the appellants were well within their rights to seek discharge of that order, however, no such step was taken – Alienation of the subject matter property was despite express orders of the Court and thus, in violation thereof – High Court rightly punished the appellants for contempt of Court – However, order modified, as directed – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXXIX R. 2A. [Paras 6, 11, 12, 14] * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 451 Smt. Lavanya C & Anr. v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deseased By LRs. & Ors. Legal Profession – Relationship between Advocate and client – Nature: Held: A lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature and the former is cast in terms of agency of the latter – The lawyer must respect the decision-making right of the client – Any undertaking given to a Court cannot be without requisite authority from the client. [Para 9] Case Law Cited Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan [1998] Supp. 1 SCR 244 : (1998) 7 SCC 59; Wander Limited & Anr. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. (1990) Supp. 1 SCC 727; Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi, 2024 SCC OnLine 3538; Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh [1991] Supp. 3 SCR 472 : (1992) 1 SCC 719; Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi [2011] 15 SCR 972 : (2012) 4 SCC 307; Kokkanda B. Poondacha v. K.D. Ganapathi [2011] 4 SCR 417 : (2011) 12 SCC 600; State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers' Assn. [1994] 1 SCR 348 : (1994) 2 SCC 204; Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh [2015] 4 SCR 616 : (2015) 7 SCC 373; Bar of Indian Lawyers v. National Institute of Communicable Diseases (2024) 8 SCC 430; Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India [1998] 2 SCR 795 : (1998) 4 SCC 409 – referred to. List of Acts Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Contempt of Court; Express violation of order of Court; Disobedience of Undertaking; Or. XXXIX R. 2A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Civil contempt; Fiduciary relationship between Advocate and client; Undertaking without requisite authority from client; Alienation of subject matter property; Disobedience of an order of temporary injunction. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13999 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2021 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA No. 7055 of 2013 452 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Radhakrishna S Hegde, Rajeev Singh. Advs. for the Respondents: Vikram Hegde, Abhinav Hansaraman. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjay Karol J. 1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 23rd February 2021/16th March, 2021 passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7055/2013(CPC) by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, whereby the respondents before the High Court, appellants herein (defendants in Trial Court), were held guilty of disobedience of their undertaking before the Trial Court of not alienating the property, subject matter of the suit. The original defendants in the Trial Court through their counsel gave an undertaking which was allegedly dis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.