Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Amrish Arora, who was original defendant No.2 in Short Cause Suit Nos.272/2008 and 273/2008 filed in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent, Rameshkumar Sachdev, failed to comply with consent terms filed on 7.6.2008 and breached undertakings given to the court. The suits were filed by the respondent seeking to restrain the calling of an Extraordinary General Meeting and to prevent the petitioner from acting as Chairman of the EGM. The suits were decreed in terms of the consent terms. The petitioner claimed that the respondent committed contempt by not fulfilling his obligations under the consent terms. The respondent denied any willful disobedience and contended that the petitioner himself was silent for about two years and had not fulfilled certain obligations, making it impossible for the respondent to comply. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner had already filed an execution petition before the civil court for enforcement of the decree, and those proceedings were ongoing. The court, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, found that the petitioner had already availed the remedy of execution, and therefore, contempt proceedings were not maintainable. The court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that no case for contempt was made out.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Consent Terms - Alleged breach of consent terms and undertakings in a civil suit does not automatically amount to contempt of court unless willful disobedience is established - The court held that where the petitioner has already initiated execution proceedings for enforcement of the consent terms, contempt proceedings are not maintainable as the remedy lies in execution (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent committed contempt of court by allegedly breaching consent terms and undertakings given to the court in a civil suit.
Final Decision
The contempt petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Contempt of court requires willful disobedience
- breach of consent terms does not automatically constitute contempt
- existence of alternative remedy like execution proceedings may preclude contempt action
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 167
Contempt Petition No. 490 of 2010 in B.C.C.C. Short Cause Suit No. 273 of 2008
Navroz Seervai a/w Ibrahim Merchant i/b K.V. Aiyar & Associates for petitioner; Milind Sathe a/w Jai Chabria and Shrinivasan Mudaliar i/b Federal & Rashmikant for respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging breach of consent terms and undertakings in a civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought action against respondent for contempt of court for failing to comply with consent terms.
Filing Reason
Alleged failure of respondent to comply with consent terms and breach of undertakings given to the court.
Previous Decisions
The suits were decreed on 7.6.2008 as per consent terms filed by parties.
Issues
Whether the respondent committed contempt of court by breaching consent terms and undertakings.
Whether contempt proceedings are maintainable when execution proceedings are already pending.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondent failed to comply with consent terms and breached undertakings, constituting contempt.
Respondent argued that petitioner was silent for two years and failed to fulfill his own obligations, making compliance impossible, and that execution proceedings were already initiated.
Ratio Decidendi
Breach of consent terms does not automatically amount to contempt of court; willful disobedience must be established. Where the petitioner has already initiated execution proceedings for enforcement of the consent terms, contempt proceedings are not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
According to the petitioner, i.e. original defendant No.2, the respondent herein failed to comply with the consent terms and has committed breach of undertakings given to the Court and thereby has committed contempt of the Court.
The petitioner has also filed Execution Petition before the Civil Court for execution of the decree as per the consent terms and the proceedings in the said execution proceedings are going on and therefore, there is no reason to take any action against the petitioner for contempt of the Court.
Procedural History
The suits were filed in City Civil Court, Mumbai, and decreed on 7.6.2008 as per consent terms. The petitioner filed this contempt petition in 2010. The respondent filed an affidavit in reply. The petitioner also filed an execution petition before the civil court.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
