LexTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI versus NIKHILN. GUPTA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015] 11 S.C.R. 31 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI A v. NIKHILN. GUPTA&ANR. Contempt Petition (C) No. 277 of 2012 IN SLP (C) No. 26541 of 2005 AUGUST 25, 2015 B [T. S. THAKUR, V. GOPALAGOWDAAND C R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Contempt of Court - Property in question leased out by contempt petitioner to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-contemnors - For a period of 10 years - The 0 lessees- Contemnors made some constructions in the leased out premises and further let out the suit premises to third parties - After expiry of the lease on 31. 12. 1952, the same not renewed - But lessee- contemnors continued to occupy the suit premises - Suit for eviction against the lessee- E contemnors decreed and approved by Supreme Court - Supreme Court, however, granted one year time to the contemnors to vacate the premises - Pursuant thereto, the respondents filed affidavit of undertaking to vacate the premises - Premises was not vacated despite the expiry of F time granted by the Supreme Court- Contempt petition filed alleging willful disobedience of this Court's order - The contemnors pleaded that they were not able to hand-over the vacant possession of suit premises as they were not able to evict the tenants (third parties); and that the petition was G not maintainable in view of s. 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Held: As per.the lease-deed and also as per the undertaking the contemnors are bound to hand-over vacant possession of the land as we/f'as the building -After expiry H 31 32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A of the lease, the third parties-obstructionists have no right to continue in occupation of the suit premises - The third parties cannot have better rights to be in occupation than that of the contemnors - The contemnors having filed the affidavit of Undertaking for vacating the suit premises, and not abiding B by that, are guilty of civil contempt by willfully breaching the Undertaking given to the court - In the facts of the case, it prima facie appears that the acts of the contemnors are in clear violation of the order bf the Supreme Court - Hence guilty of contempt of court- Directions issued to the executing C court to issue warrant of possession, and to the Plaintiff to hand-over the vacant possession to the petitioner- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-s. 20. Contempt of Court - Civil contempt - Held: Includes D willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Undertaking - Given to a Court - Breach of - Effect- Held: Public interest requires that undertaking given to a court with an intention to obtain any benefit should not be breached E willfully - Breach of such undertaking is a serious matter, and has to be dealt with sternly. Undertaking- Given to a Court- Withdrawal of- When permissible - Held: Court may permit a party to withdraw its undertaking if it is within reasonable time i.e. before availing F the benefit of order passed pursuant to such undertaking, but not after the party has availed the benefit. Jurisdiction - Contempt jurisdiction - Scope of - The. court exercising contempt jurisdiction has primarily to be G concerned with the contumacious conduct of the party alleged to have committed contempt of court. Adjourning the petition, the Court HELD: 1. The court exercising contemptjurisdiction H is primarily concerned with the question of THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI 33 v. NIKHILN. GUPTA contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to A have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. [Para 9] [40-H] Union of India & Ors. vs. Subedar Devassy PV 2006 (1) SCC 613: 2006 (1) SCR 303 - relied B on. 2.1 The dispute between the parties had been adjudicated and had attained finality and it is not open to the respondents to go beyond the orders. When this Court dismissed the special leave petition by order dated C 27.01.2006, the responden~ (petitioner in the special leave petition) were granted one year time to vacate the premises in question subject to its filing usual undertaking: in this Court. In compliance thereof, the 0 respondents have filed affidavit of undertaking. Having filed the Affidavit of Undertaking, the respondents cannot deny having filed the said affidavit. [Para 9] [41-A-C & E] 2.2 The respondents had filed interlocutory application praying to release the first respondent from E the undertaking which he had filed before
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.