{"id":252502,"date":"2021-08-10T17:00:35","date_gmt":"2021-08-10T11:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=252502"},"modified":"2021-08-12T18:05:25","modified_gmt":"2021-08-12T12:35:25","slug":"wilful-breach-of-undertaking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/10\/wilful-breach-of-undertaking\/","title":{"rendered":"Whether wilful breach of undertaking given to Court would amount to Contempt of Court under S. 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act? SC elaborates"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>The Division Bench of Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., observed that,<\/p>\n

an undertaking given by a party should be seen in the context in which it was made and (i) the benefits that accrued to the undertaking party; and (ii) the detriment\/injury suffered by the counter party.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Petitioners husband and wife were sentenced by Delhi High Court on being found guilty of committing \u2013 Contempt of Court.<\/p>\n

The said Order having been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioners came up with the Special Leave Petition.<\/p>\n

Wilful and Deliberate Breach of Undertaking<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Respondent\u00adBank filed a petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for punishing the petitioners for wilful and deliberate breach of their undertaking. Petitioners resisted the contempt petition on the ground that breach of an undertaking, made with a view to secure a conditional order of stay may not tantamount to contempt, especially when the consequences of breach of such undertaking are spelt out in the Court order itself, the Judge was not convinced.<\/p>\n

Hence, the High Court held the petitioners guilty.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n

Petitioners have already served simple imprisonment of 11 days out of the penalty of simple imprisonment for 3 months and along with that fine has also been paid.<\/p>\n

What was the undertaking that led to the contempt proceedings?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cStatement of Mr. Suman Chadha S\/o Jangi Lal Chadha R\/o H\u00ad3\/50 Sector\u00ad18, Rohini, Delhi <\/em><\/p>\n

I am the petitioner and the director of the third petitioner in this case. I am duly authorised to make a statement on its behalf. I have also filed an affidavit in support of the petition and have taken advice from my lawyer who is present with me in Court. <\/em><\/p>\n

I hereby state and confirm that the sum of Rs.28,82,25,942.24 (Twenty Eight Crores Two Lakh Twenty Five thousand Nine Hundred Forty Two and Paise Twenty Four only) as on 18.8.2014 is due and payable to the respondent i.e. the Central Bank of India as per notice u\/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. I request that in view of the demand I may be granted relief of some deferment with regard to the repayment of the loan liability. I hereby agree on behalf of self and other petitioners to deposit a total amount of Rs.7 (seven) crores with respondent \u2013Bank on or before 30.6.2015. An amount of Rs. 2(two) crores of the said amount shall be paid on or before 30.04.2015; the balance would be paid in equal instalments i.e. Rs.2.5 (Two and a half) crores on or before 31.5.2015 and 30.06.2015. <\/em><\/p>\n

I also agree and affirm that in the event of default, the Bank is free to initiate any such proceedings and avail of legal remedies as are available.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

It is true that this Court has held in a series of decisions that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court amounts to contempt of Court under Section 2(b) of the Act.<\/strong><\/p>\n

But the Court has always seen:<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n