While most candidly, courageously and cogently observing that the absence of rule of law or the presence of utter disregard for the rule of law propels a country towards inevitable ruin, the Delhi High Court in an extremely learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Navin Soni v. Munish Soni & Ors in the matter of CONT.CAS(C) 640/2018 & CM APPLs. 16138-39/2022 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 373 delivered as recently as on April 26, 2022 has mandated that it is the duty of the Court to take a strict view when there is non-compliance of judicial orders. It also merits mentioning here that the single Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad minced just no words to make it absolutely clear that the Courts should not hesitate in wielding the sword of contempt when grappling with a situation pertaining to willful disobedience. Very rightly so!
To start with, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by a single Judge Bench comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad of Delhi High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost mentioning about the purpose of instant contempt petition in para 1 putting forth that, “The instant contempt petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the Respondent No.1 for violating the undertaking given to the Court in the Order dated 21.09.2012 passed by this Court in CS (OS) 2077/2006.”
Briefly stated, the Bench then discloses in para 2 that, “Shorn of details, the facts leading to the filing of the instant contempt petition are that a suit for possession, permanent injunction and for mesne profit/damages was filed against the Respondents by one Badri Prakash Soni, who was the father of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1. During the pendency of the suit, the parents Badri Prakash Soni and Asha Soni passed away, and Vikas Soni and Navin Soni (Petitioner herein) were impleaded in lieu of the deceased parents.”
While dwelling into the nitty gritty, the Bench then envisages in para 3 that, “In the suit, the parties, who are related to each other, entered into a compromise. Under the said compromise, the Respondents Munish Soni and Piyush Soni agreed to handover the ground floor of the premises, i.e. B2/103, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, to the Petitioner on or before 30.09.2017. Apart from this, the Defendants therein (this includes the Petitioner herein) were made to pay a sum of Rs.1 Crore under the said compromise. An application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC was filed. The relevant portions of the said application reads as under:“f) That the defendants also admit that Smt. Asha Soni plaintiff no.2 now deceased, was the absolute owner of property bearing No.B-2/103 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi – 110 029 and after her death by virtue of her registered Will dated 23rd July, 2009 the said property has now devolved upon Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni absolutely without any right, title or interest to any other class I legal heirs including defendants. Thus, the said entire property bearing No.B-2/103 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi – 110 029 is absolutely owned by Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni alone.
j) That since the defendants are hard pressed of the money and the marriage of defendants Shri Piyush Soni and Ms. Shristhi Soni have to be solemnized in December and October, 2012 respectively, the defendants have requested Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni to contribute a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only) towards the expenses to be incurred by defendent no.1 on the marriage of defendant nos.2 and 3 which Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni have voluntarily agreed to give the same to defendant no.l for enabling him to incur the expenses of marriages of Shri Piyush Soni and Ms. Shristhi Soni. Since the marriage of Ms. Shristhi Soni is fixed on 29th October, 2012, and immediate expenses have to be incurred, therefore, on the request of defendant no.1, Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni have agreed to pay the substantial amount in cash and accordingly have paid Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty lacs only) in cash to defendant no.1 and Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs only) by means of cheque No.937034 dated 17/09/2012 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, the receipt of which the defendants both hereby acknowledges to have received.
m) That though the applicants have agreed to gift Rs.l crore to defendants, but it has been agreed to be gifted to the defendants only upon the conditions that defendants shall positively vacate the portion of the said premises i.e. ground floor of property bearing No.B-2/103 Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi on or before 30th September, 2017 and shall hand over physical vacant possession of the same to Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni or any other person or persons claiming under them without any demur and condition and in this regard undertake to this Hon’ble Court to abide by the said undertaking punctually and absolutely.
n) That the said undertaking has been given by the defendants knowing fully well the consequences of the same and it is agreed between the parties that in case the defendants for any reason whatsoever delays the delivery of possession of the entire ground floor to Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni beyond 30th September, 2017 then not only Shri Vikas Soni and Shri Navin Soni would not only be entitled to execute the decree for possession against the defendants, but in that eventuality shall also be entitled to recover back the aforesaid amount of Rs. l crore with interest @ 12% p.a.””
In short, the Bench then points out in para 4 that, “The said application was also accompanied by affidavits of Respondents Munish Soni and Piyush Soni.”
Shortly put, the Bench then mentions in para 5 that, “The said application was also accompanied with a receipt of Rs.1 Crore.”
Be it noted, the Bench then enunciates in para 6 that, “The said application was disposed of vide Order dated 21.09.2012 and the suit, thereafter, was decreed on the terms of the compromise and the parties were directed to remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement. The relevant portion of the said Order dated 21.09.2012 reads as under:“ The present joint application has been filed by the parties stating inter alia that during the pendency of the present proceedings, they have arrived at an out of court settlement. The terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties have been reduced into writing and set out in para 8 of the application.
Counsels for the parties state that the aforesaid settlement has been arrived at between the parties of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters. Counsel for the defendants confirms that a sum of 1 crore, agreed to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants, has already been received by his clients and nothing further is due or payable to them by the plaintiffs. He further concedes that the defendants are not left with any right, title or interest in the properties mentioned in sub para (k) of para 8 of the application and that they undertake to vacate the ground floor of the residential premises No.B2/103, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029 on or before 30.09.2017 and hand over vacant peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiffs.
The Court has perused the application. The same has been signed by the plaintiffs and the defendants as also their respective counsels. The application is duly supported by the affidavits of all the parties, who are also present in Court, and they confirm having arrived at the aforesaid settlement. They undertake to remain bound by the terms and conditions thereof. The application is supported by a receipt dated 17.09.2012 executed by the defendants No.1 to 3 confirming having received a sum of 1 crore from the plaintiffs as per the terms of compromise.
In view of the aforesaid position, the compromise application is allowed and disposed of. The suit is decreed in terms of the compromise application. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.
The suit is disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.””
As it turned out, the Bench then reveals in para 7 that, “A Memorandum of Settlement dated 18.02.2017 was also arrived at between the Petitioner and his brother, Vikas Soni, whereby absolute ownership of the premises in question was given to the latter. Consequently, a Relinquishment Deed dated 06.03.2017 was executed by Vikas Soni in favour of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner got the premises in question converted into freehold by paying conversion charges to the DDA and a conveyance deed was registered in favour of the Petitioner by the DDA on 06.07.2017.”
Logically speaking, the Bench then rightly pointed out in para 8 that, “Since the Respondents did not vacate the premises in question, the instant contempt petition has been filed. The notice was issued in the petition on 21.08.2018. The Reply has been filed.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record then envisages in para 14 that, “The Apex Court has repeatedly held that all decrees and orders are executable under the CPC, including consent decrees and orders, but merely because an order or decree is executable, it would not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the matter under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Furthermore, the Apex Court has also held that in view of the purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, i.e. preventing interference in the course of administration of justice, it would not be in consonance with the statute, judicial authority, principle or logic to draw any distinction between the wilful violation of the terms of a consent decree and violation of a decree that has been passed on adjudication.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then stipulates in para 16 that, “The learned Counsel for the Respondent’s reliance on Babu Ram Gupta (supra) also does not hold any water. While rendering the decision in Rama Narang (supra), the Apex Court had comprehensively considered the decision given in Babu Ram Gupta (supra) and noted that the said decision was solely based on the facts of the case therein and that the observations made in that regard were obiter. The Apex Court went on to hold that Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, itself provides that wilful disobedience of any order or decree, etc. would tantamount to contempt and that a compromise decree was as much a decree as a decree passed on adjudication.”
Simply put, the Bench then hastens to add in para 17 that, “A perusal of the material on record indicates that the Respondents have filed an affidavit in the suit for possession, permanent injunction and for mesne profit/damages. In paragraph No.2 of the said affidavit, the Respondents have given an undertaking to this Court to vacate the ground floor of property bearing No.B-2/103, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, and that they would positively hand over the physical vacant possession of the same to the Petitioner on or before 30th September 2017.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then points out in para 18 that, “The said affidavit is a categorical undertaking given to this Court to vacate the premises. The said affidavit was prepared on 19.09.2012 and the premises were to be handed over to the petitioner on or before 30.09.2017. There is nothing on record to show that the Respondents have approached this Court by contending that a fraud has been played on them. A receipt has also been filed to show that the payment of Rs.1 Crore has been received when the Order was passed by the Court decreeing the suit on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The receipt of Rs.1 Crore has also been acknowledged in the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 in the case. The Respondents were also present in the Court when the learned Counsel for the parties stated before the Court that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties out of their own free will, volition, consent and without undue influence. The Respondents – in persons also confirmed the receipt of the Rs.1 Crore. It is now, therefore, not open to the Respondents to contend that they have not received the remaining sum of Rs.80 lakhs.”
It deserves mentioning that the Bench then remarks in para 19 that, “As stated earlier, that after a period of five years when the time came to vacate the premises, all these defences are being raised by the Respondents only when the instant contempt petition has been filed. The judgement of the Apex Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Dhoda & Others (Supra) will not apply for the reason that the instant case is not only a violation of a compromise arrived at between the parties, but also a violation of an undertaking given to the Court as is evident from the affidavits which have been filed by the Respondents in the Court. This stands fortified by the statement made by the Counsel for the Respondents (Defendants therein) in the suit which has been recorded in the Order dated 21.09.2012 wherein the Respondents had undertaken to vacate the ground floor of the said premises.”
Without mincing any words, the Bench then forthrightly stated in para 20 that, “The submission of the Respondents that the lawyer who appeared for the Respondents had appeared for the Petitioner as well in the same case is a complete afterthought and is a mischievous argument which cannot be entertained by this Court. The Respondents kept quiet for five years. They did not raise any issue regarding any fraud played on them for five years. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has further stated that the Petitioner has criminal antecedents. This Court observes that the so-called FIR registered against the Petitioner has resulted in the discharge of the Petitioner. In any event, the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner would be irrelevant for the purpose of contempt proceedings.”
Most remarkably, the Bench then candidly puts forth in para 21 that, “This Court is now concerned with upholding the majesty of the law and the undertaking given to this Court to vacate the ground floor of the said premises. The underlying purpose of the law of contempt is meant to serve public interest and build confidence in the judicial process. This flows from how the functioning of a democratic society is sustained by the rule of law and wilful violation of the same would enable anarchy. The Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Vinay Chandra, (1995) 2 SCC 584, had delineated the purpose of the law of contempt in building confidence in the judicial process. The relevant paragraph of the said judgement has been reproduced as follows:“39. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence judiciary is not only the third pillar, but the central pillar of the democratic State. In a democracy like ours, where there is a written Constitution which is above all individuals and institutions and where the power of judicial review is vested in the superior courts, the judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform, viz., to oversee that all individuals and institutions including the executive and the legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development of the society. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. It is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with the extraordinary power of punishing those who indulge in acts whether inside or outside the courts, which tend to undermine their authority and bring them in disrepute and disrespect by scandalising them and obstructing them from discharging their duties without fear or favour. When the court exercises this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded.””
Most significantly, what forms the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then encapsulated in para 22 wherein it is held that, “The process of due course of administration of justice must remain unimpaired. Attempts to circumvent or undermine judicial decisions need to be viewed seriously in order to ensure that the functioning of our country is unhindered, especially during turbulent times. It is only the rule of law which not only cements the civilised functioning of a country, but also drives a country towards progress and development. Absence of rule of law or in the presence of utter disregard for the rule of law propels a country towards inevitable ruin. In light of this, it is the duty of the Court to take a strict view when there is non-compliance of an Order of the Courts, and Courts should not hesitate in wielding the sword of contempt when grappling with a situation pertaining to wilful disobedience.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench then holds in para 23 that, “In the instant case, a receipt of Rs.1 Crore signed by both the parties, which was also recorded in the Order dated 21.09.2012, was filed in the Court. This Court notes that there was no whisper on the part of the Respondents stating that they have not received the remaining sum of Rs.80 lakhs since the Order dated 21.09.2012 and that the said grievance has only been raised for the first time when the instant contempt petition was filed. The feeble contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Respondents were not literate and could not understand the consequences of the consent decree cannot be accepted at this point as it is observed that the Respondents were educated enough to comprehend the undertaking that they had given to the Court. This Court does not appreciate the defences that are being raised by the Respondents to subvert the authority of the Courts.”
As a corollary, the Bench then observes in para 24 that, “In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Respondents are guilty of the contempt of Court.”
In addition, the Bench then directs in para 25 that, “List on 05.05.2022, for arguments on sentence.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 26 that, “The Respondents/Contemnors are directed to be present in the Court on the next date.”
All told, we thus see that the Delhi High Court has taken a very strict view of non-compliance of judicial orders and courts should not hesitate to wield sword of contempt whenever there is willful disobedience. It has also pulled back no punches to forcefully argue that absence of rule of law propels a country towards inevitable ruin. No denying it!Sanjeev Sirohi