Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, the Court registered a suo motu contempt petition in terms of order dated 20-12-2022, Purushaindra Kumar Yadav, J., opined that the contemnor had wilfully disobeyed his own undertakings and also, disobeyed the directions passed by the Court and accordingly sentenced him for six months simple imprisonment from 14-9-2023 for contempt of court.
Background
In a case wherein, a writ petition was filed by the claimant for enforcement for award passed by the Labour Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Government of NCT of Delhi (‘Labour Commissioner’) on 17-10-207, the claimant stated that she was the deceased’s wife, and the deceased worked as a driver under the employment of the contemnor. The claimant further stated that the deceased was not paid wages from 1-5-2013 by the contemnor.
The claimant stated that since the deceased refused to continue working under the contemnor, the contemnor got annoyed and started assaulting the deceased. On 1-1-2015, the deceased disappeared from the office, and later his dead body was found hanging from a tree. Thereafter, the claimant inquired about the deceased from the contemnor, but no satisfactory answer was given to her. Thus, devoid of all the other options, the claimant approached the Labour Commissioner for appropriate compensation.
The Labour Commissioner registered a case and subsequently, passed an award dated 17-10-2017. However, since the award amount was not received by the claimant, she filed a writ petition and claimed the implementation of the award.
Thereafter, the notice was issued but no one appeared on behalf of the contemnor, thus on 13-9-2019, the Court directed the issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. However, later the contemnor appeared and the Court suspended the non-bailable warrant.
Further on 21-9-2022, the Court directed that the notice to be issued through Station House Officer for the contemnor’s appearance and on 12-10-2022, the contemnor appeared and undertook that he would make the entire payment along with the interest in two months. Further, on 1-12-2022, the Court noted that despite the undertakings, the contemnor remained absent and no payment was made.
Thus, the Court on 20-12-2022 directed for issuance of contempt notice on the contemnor.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1139, Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj (2014) 16 SCC 204, Suman Chadha v. Central Bank of India 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3702 and Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora (1996) 6 SCC 14 opined that the contemnor had wilfully disobeyed his own undertakings and also the directions passed by the Court.
The Court opined that the bare perusal of the facts indicated that the contemnor on numerous occasions, had repeatedly disobeyed his own undertakings. The Court noted that on 12-10-2022, the contemnor noted that he would submit the entire amount along with the interest, nut never did. Similarly, on 1-6-2023, the contemnor undertook that he would pay Rs. 2,00,000 to the claimant in a week and the remaining amount would be paid in instalment, and still the contemnor disobeyed his own assurance. The Court further noted that again on 25-7-2023, the contemnor undertook to pay the sum, but the same had not been paid in full till the date.
Thus, the Court observed that the contemnor had wilfully disobeyed his own undertakings and gave several false assurances to the Court. The Court opined that “one cannot be allowed to trounce the majesty of law and pollute the streams of justice by brazenly engaging in contumacious conduct with an aim of hoodwinking the judicial system.”
The Court further opined that “an unbridled interference with the administration of justice and wilful disregard for the judicial proceedings has to be checked on the anvil of contempt jurisprudence, lest it undermines the dignity of the judiciary in the eyes of the common man.”
The Court opined the even at the present stage of the contemnor had offered any reasonable amount to the claimant, the Court would have been inclined to defer the factum of awarding punishment. However, the Court referred to Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 569 and opined that since the contemnor did not take any efforts to abide by his own undertakings, the Court was duty bound to ensure that the necessary consequences would follow.
Accordingly, the Court found the contemnor guilty of committing the contempt of this court and sentenced him for six months simple imprisonment from 14-9-2023.
The matter would be further listed on 5-2-2024.
[Court on its own motion v. Amar Singh Bhalla, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5740, order dated 15-09-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Rajeev K. Virmani, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mrigank Behl, Deveshi Madan and Gunjan Soni, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Aditi Sarawat and Jawahar Raja, ASC (Civil) GNCTD; Jai Wadhwa and Ronak Karanpuria, Advocates
