Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shyam Sahni, filed a civil suit in 2008 seeking declaration, possession, and partition of a property in Friends Colony, New Delhi, originally owned by his mother Niamat Sahni. The suit alleged that after Niamat Sahni's death, the defendants, including respondent No.1 Arjun Prakash, executed fraudulent sale deeds over portions of the property. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction on 02.06.2008 restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third-party rights. Despite this order, respondent No.1 and his father Sarabjit Prakash mortgaged the first floor of the property to Bank of India for loans totaling over Rs.9 crore. The appellant filed a contempt application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and the Contempt of Courts Act. The Single Judge held Sarabjit Prakash guilty of contempt and directed both to disclose assets and clear the charge. They gave undertakings to clear the charge within four months but failed. After Sarabjit Prakash's death, respondent No.1 continued to breach undertakings, moved to Singapore, and did not comply with court directions. The Single Judge, on 26.05.2017, restrained him from leaving India and directed deposit of his passport. Respondent No.1 challenged this order before the Division Bench, which set aside the passport detention and directed its return. The Supreme Court, in appeal, held that the Division Bench erred in interfering with the Single Judge's order, as respondent No.1 had repeatedly breached undertakings and the passport impoundment was a necessary coercive measure to secure compliance. The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's order, emphasizing the court's inherent power to enforce its orders and prevent abuse of process.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Breach of Undertaking - Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC read with Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The court has inherent power to secure compliance with its orders and undertakings; repeated breaches of solemn undertakings constitute contempt and justify coercive measures including impoundment of passport to secure presence and compliance (Paras 2-13). B) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Violation and Consequences - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Where a party violates an interim injunction by creating third-party rights over suit property, the court may initiate contempt proceedings and direct deposit of passport as a coercive measure to ensure compliance with undertakings (Paras 7-12). C) Passport - Impoundment by Court - Passports Act, 1967, Section 10(3) - A civil court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC and in contempt proceedings, can direct deposit of passport to prevent a contemnor from leaving the country and to secure compliance with court orders, notwithstanding the Passports Act (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court Division Bench was justified in setting aside the Single Judge's order detaining the passport of respondent No.1, who had repeatedly breached undertakings given to the court in contempt proceedings arising from violation of an injunction order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's order dated 01.08.2018, and restored the Single Judge's order dated 26.05.2017 directing respondent No.1 to deposit his passport and restraining him from leaving the country.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Breach of Undertaking
- Passport Impoundment
- Civil Procedure Code Order XXXIX Rule 2A
- Contempt of Courts Act Sections 10 and 12
- Inherent Powers of Court
