Litigants disobey orders because courts are lenient and accept apology from contemnors: Supreme Court

In a strongly-worded judgment, the Supreme Court on Wednesday lamented that litigants often flout court orders because courts are lenient towards those held guilty in contempt of court proceedings and close such proceedings merely because such contemnors apologise afterward [Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari vs Hiralal Somabhai Contractor].A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated that such leniency makes certain litigants realise how potent of a weapon an apology can be.Over time, such a lenient attitude has actually emboldened unscrupulous litigants to disobey court orders or violate their undertakings with impunity, the bench opined. "We may take judicial notice of the fact with all humility at our command that over a period of time, the courts have shown undue leniency and magnanimity towards the contemnors. There ought not to be a tendency by courts to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness," the bench added..It further said that courts should not accept an apology if it is nothing but a legal trick to wriggle out of responsibility, which can damage the dignity of the judiciary.."A true apology must be a deep ethical act of introspection, self-introspection, atonement and self-reform. In its absence, an apology can be termed as farce. It is equally well-settled that apology tendered is not to be accepted as a matter of course and the court is not bound to accept the same," the Court said..Notably, the Court also ruled that the wilful disobedience or breach of an assurance given in an undertaking by lawyers on behalf of their clients to the court would amount to civil contempt. In this regard, the Court clarified that:(i) The wilful breach or disobedience of an assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel / advocate on behalf of his client to the court would amount to “civil contempt” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.(ii) The undertaking given to a court attracts the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, whereas an undertaking given to a party to the lis by way of an agreement of settlement or otherwise would not attract the provisions of the Act.(iii) Although the transfer of the suit property pendente lite (which is involved in a pending case before the court) may not be termed as void ab initio when the court is looking into such transfers in contempt proceedings, the court can definitely declare such transactions to be void in order to maintain the majesty of the law. Apart from punishing the contemnor, for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that directions be issued by the court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct (the property transfer) is completely nullified.(iv) The beneficiaries of any contumacious transaction have no right or locus to be heard in the contempt proceedings on the ground that they are bona fide purchasers of the property for value without notice and therefore, are necessary parties. Contempt is between the court and the contemnor and no third party can involve itself in the same..The Court was dealing with appeals filed by contemnors who had been convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act by the Gujarat High Court.The appellants had gone ahead with the execution of a sale deed for a significant sum in violation of an undertaking given before the High Court..The Supreme Court opined that since there was no doubt that the appellants had committed contempt of Court, their 'lame apology' cannot be accepted and punishment must follow. "We wonder what could be the ultimate outcome if we accept the apology and allow the appellants to go scot-free. First, they would have to face no legal consequences for the alleged act of contempt and secondly, would continue to enjoy or retain the fruits of their contempt. We say so because they have already pocketed a sizeable amount towards the sale consideration obtained from the purchasers," the Court added. .The top court concluded that the High Court had rightly rejected the appellants' apology, which the Supreme Court opined was nothing but a gamble. "They (contemnors) took a calculated risk to transfer the properties and pocketed the sale consideration ... such fake apologies should not be accepted by the court and allow a person who has no regard for the Majesty of law to get away from the legal consequences," the bench remarked..The Supreme Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the contemnors, who were given two weeks to surrender and serve out the punishment imposed on them by the High Court..Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Meenakshi Arora, Kapil Sibal and Mihir Joshi with advocates Soumik Ghosal, Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, and Vanshdeep Dalmia appeared for an appellant, one Balwant Bhandari.Senior Advocate Arijit Prasad with advocate Taruna Singh Gohil appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]