Introduction
Date of the Judgment: March 5, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 325
Judges: Pankaj Mithal J., Sanjay Karol J.
What happens when a party assures the court they won’t sell a property during a legal battle, but then does so anyway? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this issue in a case involving a property dispute, focusing on the importance of respecting commitments made to the court. This judgment clarifies the consequences for those who disregard their promises, especially when those promises are relied upon by the court.
The Supreme Court, in this civil appeal, upheld a High Court decision finding the appellants guilty of contempt of court for violating an undertaking given to the Trial Court. The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol, modified the sentence by removing the imprisonment term for one of the appellants, while affirming the attachment of property and enhancing the compensation amount.
Case Background
The case originated from a dispute over a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated April 30, 2004, concerning the construction of residential apartments. The respondents (original plaintiffs) sought a declaration to revoke, rescind, and terminate the JDA, citing that the construction, which was to be completed by October 31, 2006, was not done according to the agreement. A legal notice was issued on March 23, 2007, leading to the filing of Original Suit No. 4191 of 2007.
During the proceedings, the defendants, through their counsel, gave an undertaking on July 11, 2007, and August 13, 2007, that they would not alienate the property. However, the plaintiffs alleged that this undertaking was violated, leading to the filing of Interlocutory Application No.3, registered as Civil Misc. Application No.38 of 2011, under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 30, 2004 | Joint Development Agreement (JDA) signed. |
| October 31, 2006 | Original deadline for construction completion under the JDA. |
| March 23, 2007 | Legal notice issued to cancel the JDA. |
| 2007 | Original Suit No.4191 filed. |
| July 11, 2007 | First undertaking given by the defendants’ counsel not to alienate the property. |
| August 13, 2007 | Second undertaking given by the defendants’ counsel not to alienate the property. |
| November 17, 2007 | Trial Court ordered that defendants shall not alienate the property until the next date. |
| November 19, 2007 onwards | Sale deeds executed by the defendants. |
| 2011 | Interlocutory Application No.3 (Civil Misc. Application No.38 of 2011) filed, alleging violation of the undertaking. |
| August 2, 2013 | Trial Court dismissed the application alleging violation of undertaking. |
| 2013 | Misc. First Appeal No.7055 of 2013 (CPC) filed in the High Court. |
| January 2, 2017 | Trial Court dismisses the Original Suit. |
| March 23, 2017 | R.F.A.No.592/2017 filed before the High Court against dismissal of Original Suit. |
| February 23, 2021/March 16, 2021 | High Court held the appellants guilty of disobedience. |
| March 5, 2025 | Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court initially dismissed the plaintiff’s application, stating that they failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants knowingly and willfully disobeyed the court’s order. The Trial Court noted that the description of the property was incomplete and ambiguous, and the evidence presented by the petitioners was not believable.
Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiffs appealed to the High Court via Misc. First Appeal No.7055 of 2013 (CPC). The High Court then considered whether the lower court’s order was sustainable in law.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). This provision deals with the consequences of disobeying a court order or breaching an undertaking given to the court. Specifically, it allows the court to:
- Attach the property of the person who has disobeyed the order.
- Detain the person in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months.
The Supreme Court also considered the fiduciary relationship between an advocate and their client, emphasizing that lawyers must have specific authorization from their clients before making undertakings to the court.
Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC provides for circumstances when temporary injunction may be granted. The court has the power to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit.
Order XXXIX Rule 2 of CPC provides for injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach. In cases of breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may sue for an injunction to restrain the repetition or continuance of the breach or injury.
Arguments
Appellants’ (Defendants’) Arguments:
- The prayers in the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 did not specifically restrain the parties from creating third-party rights.
- The Trial Court observed that the description of the property was ambiguous and incomplete, and there was no satisfactory material to show willful disobedience.
- The respondents deliberately suppressed facts regarding the construction of apartments and selling off parts of it before filing the original suit.
- An unconditional apology was tendered, and there was no intention to disrespect the court.
- The sentence imposed was unjustified, given the age and health condition of the second appellant.
Respondents’ (Plaintiffs’) Arguments:
- The undertaking given by the defendants’ counsel was clear and binding.
- The defendants violated the undertaking by alienating the property to third parties.
- The High Court was correct in holding the appellants guilty of contempt of court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of the Undertaking |
✓ No specific prayer restraining third-party rights. ✓ Property description was ambiguous. |
✓ Undertaking was clear and binding. |
| Willful Disobedience |
✓ No satisfactory material to prove willful disobedience. ✓ Deliberate suppression of facts by respondents. |
✓ Property alienation violated the undertaking. |
| Justification of Sentence |
✓ Unconditional apology tendered. ✓ Age and health condition of the second appellant. |
✓ High Court was correct in holding contempt. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Court below, holding the appellants herein not guilty of willful disobedience of their undertaking given to the Court.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Court below, holding the appellants herein not guilty of willful disobedience of their undertaking given to the Court. | Upheld the High Court’s decision. | The appellants violated their undertaking not to alienate the property, which was made into an order of the Court. |
Authorities
The court considered several cases and legal provisions to arrive at its decision:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Wander Limited & Anr. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. [1990 (Suppl) SCC 727] | Supreme Court of India | Explained the principles for granting temporary injunctions, emphasizing the need to weigh the protection of the plaintiff’s rights against the defendant’s rights. |
| Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi [2024 SCC OnLine 3538] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the principles governing the grant of temporary injunction, referring to Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 719]. |
| Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi [(2012) 4 SCC 307] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the aspect of disobedience of an order of temporary injunction, stating that an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC lies only where there is a breach of an injunction granted by the court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. |
| Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan [(1998) 7 SCC 59] | Supreme Court of India | Observed that even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience does not get erased. |
| Kokkanda B. Poondacha v. K.D. Ganapathi [(2011) 12 SCC 600] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the nature of the relationship between a lawyer and his client, emphasizing the fiduciary duty and the need for utmost good faith. |
| State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn. [1994 (2) SCC 204] | Supreme Court of India | Highlighted that the legal profession is essentially a service-oriented profession and the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one of trust and confidence. |
| Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh [(2015) 7 SCC 373] | Supreme Court of India | Observed that lawyers are perceived to be their client’s agents and owe fiduciary duties to their clients. |
| Bar of Indian Lawyers v. National Institute of Communicable Diseases [(2024) 8 SCC 430] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the principles governing the relationship between an advocate and his client, emphasizing the advocate’s duty to follow the client’s instructions. |
| Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India [(1998) 4 SCC 409] | Supreme Court of India | Explained the purpose of contempt jurisdiction, emphasizing that it is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. |
Judgment
| Submission | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ claim that the undertaking was given without express authorization. | Rejected. The Court noted that the undertaking was given in July 2007, and the application was filed in 2011. If the undertaking was without authority, the clients should have sought discharge of that order. |
| Appellants’ unconditional apology. | Not sufficient to excuse the violation of the court’s order. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- Wander Limited & Anr. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. [CITATION]: Used to reiterate the principles for granting temporary injunctions.
- Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi [CITATION]: Used to reiterate the principles governing the grant of temporary injunction, referring to Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh.
- Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi [CITATION]: Used to discuss the aspect of disobedience of an order of temporary injunction.
- Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan [CITATION]: Used to support the view that even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience does not get erased.
- Kokkanda B. Poondacha v. K.D. Ganapathi [CITATION]: Used to emphasize the fiduciary relationship between a lawyer and his client.
- State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn. [CITATION]: Used to highlight that the legal profession is a service-oriented profession and the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one of trust and confidence.
- Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh [CITATION]: Used to support the view that lawyers are perceived to be their client’s agents and owe fiduciary duties to their clients.
- Bar of Indian Lawyers v. National Institute of Communicable Diseases [CITATION]: Used to reiterate the principles governing the relationship between an advocate and his client.
- Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India [CITATION]: Used to explain the purpose of contempt jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court’s judgment, stating that the exercise of contempt jurisdiction was justified due to the express violation of the Court’s order. However, considering the age of appellant No.1, the Court modified the order to the extent that the three months confinement in civil prison was deleted. The rest of the order regarding attachment of property remained undisturbed. Additionally, the amount of compensation payable by the appellants was enhanced from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 13 lakhs, with simple interest @6% from the date of the judgment of the lower Court, i.e., August 2, 2013.
What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity and majesty of the law. The Court considered the fiduciary relationship between a lawyer and client, but ultimately held that the violation of the court’s order justified the exercise of contempt jurisdiction.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Violation of Court Order | 40% |
| Fiduciary Duty of Advocate | 30% |
| Maintaining Dignity of Law | 30% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations:
| Consideration | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Factual Aspects | 60% |
| Legal Considerations | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Court below, holding the appellants herein not guilty of willful disobedience of their undertaking given to the Court.
Flowchart:
Undertaking Given to Court ↓ Undertaking Violated by Alienation ↓ Contempt of Court Established ↓ High Court’s Decision Upheld
Key Takeaways
- Undertakings given to the court are binding and must be strictly adhered to.
- Violation of an undertaking can result in contempt of court, leading to attachment of property and imprisonment.
- Lawyers must have specific authorization from their clients before making undertakings to the court.
- The dignity and majesty of the law must be maintained, and courts have the power to enforce their orders.
Directions
The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order by deleting the three-month confinement in civil prison for appellant No.1. The rest of the order regarding attachment of property remained undisturbed. Additionally, the amount of compensation payable by the appellants was enhanced from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 13 lakhs, with simple interest @6% from the date of the judgment of the lower Court, i.e., August 2, 2013.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that undertakings given to the court are binding and their violation can result in contempt of court. The judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining the dignity and majesty of the law and ensures that courts have the power to enforce their orders.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Lavanya C. vs. Vittal Gurudas Pai underscores the significance of honoring commitments made to the court. By upholding the contempt ruling, the Court has reaffirmed the judiciary’s authority and the serious consequences of disobeying court orders. This case serves as a reminder to parties involved in legal disputes to respect the legal process and adhere to their undertakings.