Case Note & Summary
The contempt petition was filed by Hukum Chand Deswal (petitioner) against Satish Raj Deswal (respondent) alleging wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court's order dated 22.2.2019. The background involves a suit for possession and recovery of rent filed by the petitioner in the Delhi High Court, which was disposed of based on a settlement dated 28.5.2015. The respondent agreed to vacate the suit property by 31.12.2017 and pay rent. Subsequently, the respondent sought extension of time, and the High Court on 12.7.2018 recorded a second agreement extending the vacating date to 30.11.2018. The respondent's applications for further extension were rejected by the High Court and the Division Bench. The respondent then approached the Supreme Court, which on 22.2.2019 dismissed the special leave petitions but granted four weeks' time to vacate, subject to payment of outstanding dues and filing an undertaking within two weeks. The respondent vacated the premises on 22.3.2019 but did not file an undertaking or pay the alleged outstanding dues of Rs.1,32,48,794. The petitioner also claimed that the respondent caused damage to the property. The Court examined whether these acts constituted contempt. It held that the respondent complied with the substantive direction to vacate within time. The failure to file an undertaking, while a technical breach, did not amount to wilful disobedience as the main purpose of the order was achieved. Regarding outstanding dues, the Court noted a bona fide dispute over the amount, as the respondent claimed the petitioner had violated the trademark agreement, and the order did not specify the exact sum. As for damage to property, the settlement permitted removal of structures, and the petitioner did not provide concrete evidence of deliberate damage. The Court emphasized that contempt requires proof of deliberate or contumacious disobedience with mens rea, which was lacking. The respondent tendered an unconditional apology. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Supreme Court Order - The petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to file an undertaking, pay outstanding dues, and caused damage to the suit premises in violation of the Court's order dated 22.2.2019. The Court held that the respondent vacated the premises within the stipulated time and the petitioner failed to establish deliberate or contumacious disobedience. The contempt petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-20) B) Contempt of Court - Undertaking - Requirement - The Court's order required the respondent to file an undertaking within two weeks. The respondent did not file an undertaking but vacated the premises within the extended time. The Court held that the failure to file an undertaking, without more, does not constitute contempt as the substantive direction to vacate was complied with. (Paras 12-20) C) Contempt of Court - Outstanding Dues - Payment - The petitioner claimed Rs.1,32,48,794 as outstanding dues. The respondent disputed the amount and alleged that the petitioner had violated the settlement by continuing to use the trademark. The Court held that the dispute over dues is a civil matter and not contempt, as the order did not specify the exact amount payable. (Paras 12-20) D) Contempt of Court - Damage to Property - Allegation - The petitioner alleged that the respondent caused damage to the suit property while vacating. The Court noted that the respondent was permitted to remove civil structures and fixtures under the settlement, and the petitioner failed to provide specific evidence of damage beyond normal wear and tear. Held that such allegations require proof of deliberate damage, which was lacking. (Paras 12-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent committed wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court's order dated 22.2.2019 by failing to file an undertaking, pay outstanding dues, and causing damage to the suit premises while vacating.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the respondent did not commit wilful disobedience. The respondent vacated the premises within the stipulated time. The failure to file an undertaking was a technical breach but not contempt as the substantive direction was complied with. The dispute over outstanding dues was a civil matter, and the allegation of damage was not substantiated. The rule was discharged.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Wilful Disobedience
- Undertaking
- Outstanding Dues
- Damage to Property
- Burden of Proof
- Mens Rea
