Supreme Court Upholds Contempt of Court: Sitaram Enterprises vs. Prithviraj Jain (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 09, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 685

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

What happens when a court order is deliberately ignored? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a contempt case, highlighting the importance of respecting judicial authority. This case involves a tenant who repeatedly failed to comply with court orders to vacate a property, leading to serious consequences.

The Supreme Court, in this case, examined whether a tenant’s repeated failure to comply with court orders and undertakings constitutes contempt of court, thereby undermining the judicial process. The bench comprised of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, with Justice J.K. Maheshwari authoring the judgment.

Case Background

M/s Sitaram Enterprises, the landlord, initiated eviction suits against Prithviraj Vardichand Jain, the tenant, in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay (Bandra Branch) in 2003. The suits pertained to Shop No. 3 and Room No. 4 of properties located at Municipal House Nos. 427, 430, and 431 in Mumbai. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of bona fide need and non-payment of rent by the tenant.

The Trial Court decreed the suits in favor of the landlord on August 21, 2015. The tenant then appealed to the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bandra, Mumbai, which dismissed the appeals on August 25, 2022. Undeterred, the tenant challenged the Appellate Court’s decision in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, filing Civil Revisions, which were also dismissed on October 12, 2022. The tenant’s subsequent review petitions were dismissed on December 7, 2022.

The tenant then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court of India. On June 6, 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed these petitions, granting the tenant nine months to vacate the premises, subject to the tenant filing an undertaking and affidavit. The tenant was also required to pay charges for use and occupation equivalent to the monthly rent. The order explicitly stated that a breach of the undertaking could lead to contempt proceedings. The tenant failed to submit the undertaking and instead filed Review Petitions, which were dismissed on February 7, 2024.

Subsequently, the tenant filed applications seeking an extension of time to vacate the premises and only then furnished the undertaking/affidavit on February 22, 2024. These applications were dismissed on March 4, 2024, and the nine-month period to vacate the premises expired on March 6, 2024.

Despite a notice from the landlord on March 4, 2024, to hand over possession by March 6, 2024, the tenant failed to vacate, leading to the filing of the present contempt petitions.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case began in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, where the landlord sought eviction of the tenant. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the landlord, which was then upheld by the Appellate Bench. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay also dismissed the tenant’s challenges, including review petitions.

The matter then reached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions, which were dismissed on June 6, 2023. The Supreme Court granted the tenant nine months to vacate, conditional on filing an undertaking. The tenant failed to comply and instead filed review petitions, which were also dismissed. Subsequently, applications for extension of time were filed and dismissed. Despite all these proceedings, the tenant did not vacate the premises, leading to the contempt petitions.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s power to punish for contempt is derived from Article 129 of the Constitution of India, which states:

“Article 129: Supreme Court to be a court of record. The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”

This provision grants the Supreme Court the authority to maintain its dignity and ensure compliance with its orders. The power to punish for contempt is essential to uphold the rule of law and maintain public trust in the judicial system.

Arguments

The primary argument of the petitioner/landlord was that the respondent/tenant had deliberately and willfully disobeyed the order of the Supreme Court dated June 6, 2023, by not vacating the premises within the granted time, despite giving an undertaking. The landlord emphasized that the tenant had exhausted all legal avenues, including multiple appeals, revisions, and review petitions, yet continued to delay compliance.

The respondent/tenant, on the other hand, initially failed to appear in court despite multiple notices and even misled the police to avoid arrest under non-bailable warrants. When finally produced in court, the tenant pleaded for leniency, citing old age, health issues, and a large family to support. The tenant also argued that his curative petitions were pending and requested more time to vacate the premises.

The tenant’s newly engaged counsel also argued for more time to hand over the property, emphasizing the tenant’s difficult circumstances. However, the court noted that the tenant’s actions demonstrated a clear pattern of non-compliance and a lack of respect for judicial orders.

The innovativeness in the landlord’s argument was in highlighting the tenant’s consistent pattern of delaying tactics and non-compliance, despite multiple opportunities to comply with the court’s orders. The tenant’s argument was not particularly innovative, relying on typical pleas for leniency and delay.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the respondent/tenant’s conduct constituted contempt of court due to non-compliance with the order dated 06.06.2023.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on Article 129 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held the tenant guilty of contempt of court for deliberately and willfully disobeying its order dated June 6, 2023. The Court found no merit in the tenant’s explanations and noted his consistent pattern of non-compliance.

The Court observed that the tenant had been given ample time and opportunity to comply with the orders. The tenant’s conduct, including misleading the police and failing to appear in court despite multiple directions, demonstrated a clear disregard for the judicial process.

The Court granted a final opportunity to the tenant to vacate the premises within one week, failing which, the Court directed forceful possession with police help and a court commissioner.

The Court also directed that the cost incurred by the state exchequer in executing the non-bailable warrants and producing the contemnor before the Court shall be borne by the contemnor.

The Court stated that, “Contempt of court is a serious legal infraction that strikes at the very soul of justice and the sanctity of legal proceedings.”

The Court also noted that, “The Courts ordinarily take lenient approach in a case of some delay in compliance of the orders, unless the same is deliberate and willful, on confronting the conduct of the contemnor that strikes the very heart of judicial authority.”

The Court further added that, “Undoubtedly, this appalling breach of legal decorum has in its face challenged the sanctity of the orders passed by this Court and hence we are constrained to examine Contemnor/tenant’s willful and deliberate act of non-compliance of the order and also the undertaking furnished by him as directed.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the tenant’s repeated and deliberate non-compliance with court orders. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the sanctity of judicial proceedings and ensuring that court orders are respected. The tenant’s attempts to delay compliance through various legal maneuvers, misleading the police, and failing to appear in court despite multiple notices, all contributed to the Court’s decision to hold him in contempt.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual sequence of events, which clearly demonstrated the tenant’s willful disobedience. The legal considerations, particularly Article 129 of the Constitution, provided the framework for the Court’s authority to act against the contempt.

Key Takeaways

• Compliance with Court Orders: It is crucial to comply with court orders and undertakings. Failure to do so can result in serious consequences, including contempt of court.
• Respect for Judicial Authority: The judiciary’s authority must be respected. Attempts to delay or evade court orders undermine the rule of law.
• Consequences of Contempt: Contempt proceedings can lead to penalties, including imprisonment and financial liabilities.
• No Automatic Stay: Filing curative petitions does not automatically stay the execution of court orders.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The respondent/tenant must hand over vacant possession of the properties within seven days.
2. If the tenant fails to comply, possession will be taken forcefully with police help under a warrant issued by the 68th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Borivali West, Mumbai.
3. A Court Commissioner will prepare an inventory of the material in the premises and hand it over to the tenant against receipt.
4. The cost of the Court Commissioner and police help shall be borne by the tenant.
5. The tenant is sentenced till the rising of the Court and released.
6. The tenant must bear the cost incurred by the state in executing the non-bailable warrants and producing him before the Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that deliberate and willful disobedience of court orders, especially when coupled with undertakings, constitutes contempt of court. This case reinforces the importance of respecting judicial authority and complying with court directives. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the case emphasizes the strict enforcement of court orders and the consequences of non-compliance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Sitaram Enterprises vs. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain underscores the critical importance of complying with court orders and respecting the judicial process. The Court’s firm stance against the tenant’s deliberate non-compliance sends a clear message that contempt of court will not be tolerated. This case serves as a reminder that the judiciary’s authority must be upheld to ensure the effective administration of justice.