Supreme Court Orders Imprisonment for Contempt of Court in Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund vs. Dharmesh S. Jain (12 May 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 May 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

What happens when a party deliberately ignores court orders? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, imposing a sentence of imprisonment on a contemnor for wilful disobedience of its orders and those of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. This case underscores the importance of respecting judicial authority and the consequences of failing to do so.

The Supreme Court, in this case, dealt with a contempt petition against Dharmesh S. Jain and another respondent for not complying with previous court orders. Despite being held guilty of contempt, the contemnors failed to either settle the dispute or comply with the orders, leading to the imposition of a jail sentence and a fine.

Case Background

The case stems from a dispute where the respondents, Dharmesh S. Jain and another, were found to have wilfully disobeyed orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The initial order, dated 28.10.2021, was passed by the Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14724/2021. Additionally, the respondents were also found to have disobeyed an order dated 08.08.2019, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Notice of Motion No. 960 of 2019 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 55 of 2019.

The petitioner, Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund, sought action against the respondents for their continued non-compliance with these orders. Despite being given multiple opportunities to comply or settle the matter amicably, the respondents failed to do so, leading to the Supreme Court’s decision to impose a sentence.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around the Contempt of Courts Act, which empowers courts to punish individuals for disobeying their orders. The Supreme Court noted that the respondents’ actions constituted a wilful disobedience of court orders, thereby attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Arguments

The contemnors, represented by Shri Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, argued for leniency in sentencing. They stated that they had attempted to reach an amicable settlement with the petitioner but had not been successful. However, the Court noted that despite being given multiple opportunities, the contemnors had neither complied with the court orders nor settled the dispute. The primary argument of the contemnors was to seek leniency in sentencing, based on their attempts at settlement, which the Court did not find sufficient to avoid punishment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was the quantum of sentence to be imposed on the contemnors, who were already held guilty of contempt of court for wilful disobedience of court orders. The court had to determine the appropriate punishment for the contemnors’ continued non-compliance.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

No specific authorities (cases or books) were cited in this order. The decision was based on the established principles of contempt of court and the facts of the case.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the contemnors’ continued wilful disobedience of court orders. The Court emphasized that despite being held guilty and given multiple opportunities to comply or settle, the contemnors failed to do so. This demonstrated a blatant disregard for the authority of the Court, necessitating a punitive response. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to uphold the sanctity of judicial orders and ensure that the rule of law is respected.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the fact that the contemnors had wilfully disobeyed the orders of the Court and had not taken any steps to comply with the same. The Court also considered the fact that the contemnors had been given multiple opportunities to comply with the orders, but they had failed to do so. The Court also considered the fact that the contemnors had not made any attempt to settle the dispute amicably with the petitioner.

“The fact remains that even after the respondents are held guilty for wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court as well as the High Court…neither the respondents/contemnors have complied with the orders passed by this Court as well as the High Court nor have they settled the dispute amicably.”

“In the above circumstances and in furtherance of our earlier judgment and order dated 10.03.2022 whereby the respondents, more particularly, respondent no.1 has been held guilty for wilful disobedience…we hereby sentence respondent No.1 – Dharmesh S. Jain to undergo seven days simple imprisonment, as also, impose a fine on both the respondents, which is quantified as Rs. 5,00,000/-“

“However, so as to give one last opportunity to the contemnor to purge the contempt and comply with the orders passed by the Bombay High Court as well as this Court, it is observed that the aforesaid sentence shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from today…”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Wilful disobedience of court orders can lead to imprisonment.
• ✓ Courts take a stern view of contempt and non-compliance.
• ✓ Multiple opportunities to comply do not guarantee leniency if non-compliance continues.
• ✓ Contemnors must take court orders seriously and comply with them to avoid punishment.
• ✓ The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of respecting judicial authority.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• ✓ Respondent No. 1, Dharmesh S. Jain, was sentenced to seven days simple imprisonment.
• ✓ Both respondents were to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00,000, to be deposited with the High Court of Judicature at Bombay within two weeks.
• ✓ Out of the fine, Rs. 4,00,000 was to be paid to the petitioner, and Rs. 1,00,000 was to be transferred to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.
• ✓ The sentence was kept in abeyance for two weeks, providing a final opportunity to comply with the court orders.
• ✓ Failure to comply would result in the sentence taking effect, and respondent No. 1 would have to surrender to serve the imprisonment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not applicable, as no specific amendments were discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that wilful disobedience of court orders will be met with punitive measures, including imprisonment and fines. The Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of complying with court orders and has shown that it will not hesitate to take action against those who fail to do so. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to sentence Dharmesh S. Jain to imprisonment for contempt of court underscores the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing its orders. The case serves as a reminder that ignoring court directives has serious consequences. The contemnors’ failure to comply with previous orders, despite being given multiple opportunities, led to the imposition of a jail sentence and a fine. This judgment reinforces the principle that the authority of the court must be respected, and wilful disobedience will not be tolerated.