Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Feroze Homi Duggan, filed a Notice of Motion in Suit No. 4847 of 1995 seeking to strike off the defence of defendant nos.1 to 5 and 10 for persistent breaches of court orders, particularly the order dated 2nd April 1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal Lodging No. 270 of 1997, and the undertaking given by defendant no.10 as Director of defendant no.1. The plaintiff also sought detention of defendant nos.1 and 10 in civil prison for wilful disobedience. The court noted that the Division Bench order required the defendants to pay royalty at Rs.3 lakhs per month to the Court Receiver, execute an agency agreement with the Receiver within 15 days, and file an undertaking to pay the remaining royalty of Rs.58 lakhs by 20th May 1997. The defendants failed to comply with these directions, leading to the present motion. The court found that the defendants had persistently and wilfully disobeyed the orders and breached the undertaking. Consequently, the court allowed the motion, striking off the defence of defendant nos.1 to 5 and 10, and ordered the detention of defendant nos.1 and 10 in civil prison for a period to be determined. The court emphasized that such action was necessary to uphold the dignity and authority of the court and to ensure compliance with its orders.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Striking Out Defence - Persistent Breach of Court Orders - Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The plaintiff sought striking out of defence of defendant nos.1 to 5 and 10 for persistent breaches of court orders, particularly the Division Bench order dated 2nd April 1997 and undertaking given by defendant no.10. The court held that the defendants had wilfully and persistently disobeyed the orders and breached the undertaking, warranting striking out of defence and detention in civil prison. (Paras 2-10) B) Contempt of Court - Breach of Undertaking - Civil Contempt - Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The defendant no.10, as Director of defendant no.1, gave an undertaking to pay royalty and execute agency agreement. The court found that the defendants failed to pay royalty regularly and did not execute the agency agreement, constituting a clear breach of undertaking. The court ordered detention of defendant nos.1 and 10 in civil prison for wilful disobedience. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defence of the defendants should be struck off and the defendants detained in civil prison for persistent breach of court orders and undertaking.
Final Decision
The court allowed the motion, striking off the defence of defendant nos.1 to 5 and 10, and ordered the detention of defendant nos.1 and 10 in civil prison for a period to be determined.
Law Points
- Striking out defence for contempt of court
- Breach of undertaking
- Civil contempt
- Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC
- Inherent powers of court
