Delhi High Court wields "sword of contempt" against party for wilful disobedience of order, breach of compromise

While holding a party guilty in a contempt case, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that courts should not hesitate in "wielding the sword of contempt" when grappling with "wilful disobedience." [Navin Soni v. Munish Soni & Ors]..Holding the respondents in contempt, Justice Subramonium Prasad highlighted the duty of the court towards taking a strict view when there is non-compliance of its orders.“Courts should not hesitate in wielding the sword of contempt when grappling with a situation pertaining to wilful disobedience,” the order stated..The single-judge was acting on a plea seeking contempt action against a man for violating an undertaking given to the Court. While deciding the case, the High Court underlined the need for the process of administration of justice to remain unimpaired.The order made a comment on how rule of law should prevail over any aberration seeming to undermine judicial verdicts.“Attempts to circumvent or undermine judicial decisions need to be viewed seriously in order to ensure that the functioning of our country is unhindered, especially during turbulent times. It is only the rule of law which not only cements the civilised functioning of a country, but also drives a country towards progress and development,” the order underscored..It is only the rule of law which not only cements the civilised functioning of a country, but also drives a country towards progress and developmentJustice Subramonium Prasad.The issue stemmed from a property dispute where the parties - all related to each other - reached a compromise. As part of the truce, the respondents in the case where supposed to hand over a part of the property in question to the petitioner. The compromise involved a payment of ₹1 crore to the persons handing over the property.A suit arising out of the dispute was resultantly decreed in terms of the compromise, and the parties were directed to remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.Subsequently, the petitioner got the property converted into a freehold one by paying conversion charges to the Delhi Development Authority, and a conveyance deed was registered in his favour July 6, 2017. When the respondents did not vacate the premises, a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner.The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the undertaking given to the High Court stood violated, as the respondents were the duty-bound to vacate the premises on or before September 30, 2017, which they failed to do..Counsel for the respondents argued that only a violation of the undertaking given to the court, which was not there in the present case, can result in contempt of court.The respondent's counsel accused the petitioners of playing fraud by not paying the decided amount of ₹1 crore. It was also pointed out that only a draft of ₹20 lakh had been given to the respondents so far..The High Court, however, noted that a receipt was filed on record to show the payment of ₹1 crore when the decree order on the suit was passed during the compromise between the parties.“The receipt of ₹1 crore has also been acknowledged in the application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 in the case. The respondents were also present in the Court when the learned Counsel for the parties stated before the Court that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties out of their own free will, volition, consent and without undue influence. The respondents – in persons also confirmed the receipt of the ₹1 crore. It is now, therefore, not open to the respondents to contend that they have not received the remaining sum of ₹80 lakh,” the Court observed..The Court accordingly found the respondents guilty of contempt of court. Arguments on sentencing will be heard on May 5..Advocates Vikas Arora, Radhika Arora, Mohit Dagar, Siddharth Singh and Ayush Kumar represented the petitioner.Advocates Varinder Kumar Sharma and Akshay Soni appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]