SMT LAVANYA C & ANR VERSUS VITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13999 OF 2024

DATE: 05/03/2025

BENCH: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Karol

FACTS:

The appellants, who were the original defendants in a property dispute, entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on April 30, 2004, for the construction of residential apartments within 24 months. However, the project was not completed on time, leading the plaintiffs (respondents herein) to issue a legal notice cancelling the JDA in March 2007 and subsequently filing Original Suit No. 4191 of 2007. During the trial, the defendants’ counsel undertook not to alienate the property on two occasions—July 11 and August 13, 2007. Despite this, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had breached their undertaking by executing sale deeds, prompting them to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking action for contempt.

The Trial Court dismissed the contempt application, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove wilful disobedience beyond a reasonable doubt. However, on appeal, the Karnataka High Court overturned this decision, citing the defendants' explicit undertakings and subsequent sale of the property. The High Court held the appellants guilty of contempt and imposed penalties, including a three-month civil imprisonment for one contemnor, property attachment for one year, and a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs to be paid within four weeks. The appellants, aggrieved by this decision, have now challenged the High Court’s ruling in the present appeal.

ISSUES:

The appellants argue that no specific injunction restraining third-party rights was sought in the original application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and that the Trial Court found the property description ambiguous, granting them the benefit of the doubt. They further contend that the respondents suppressed facts regarding the prior construction and sale of apartments before filing the suit. Additionally, they have tendered an unconditional apology, asserting that there was no intent to disrespect any court order. Lastly, they claim that the sentence imposed is unjustified, particularly given the second appellant’s advanced age and health issues.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s decision, confirming the contempt conviction against the appellants for willful disobedience of the undertaking given to the court. However, considering the age of appellant No.1, the court modifies the punishment by setting aside the three-month civil imprisonment while increasing the compensation amount from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.13 lakhs, with 6% simple interest from August 2, 2013. The appeal is thus partly allowed, reinforcing the necessity of upholding court orders and ensuring compliance with judicial directions.

The court’s decision is based on the established legal principle that an advocate-client relationship is fiduciary in nature, and while lawyers act as agents of their clients, their authority is not unlimited. The appellants attempted to evade responsibility by arguing that their counsel had given the undertaking without express authorization. However, as held in Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh and Sourendra Nath Mitra v. Tarubala Dasi, an advocate’s implied authority is intended to serve the client’s best interests and can be countermanded only by express instructions. The appellants failed to challenge the undertaking within a reasonable period and instead violated the court’s order by alienating the subject matter property. This demonstrated clear disregard for judicial authority, justifying the High Court’s intervention in setting aside the trial court’s acquittal.

Furthermore, the court reinforced the principle that contempt jurisdiction is intended to uphold the dignity and majesty of law, as observed in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India. While recognizing that contempt proceedings should not serve as a substitute for execution under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC, the court emphasized that in cases of deliberate defiance of court orders, contempt jurisdiction remains a necessary tool to maintain judicial discipline. The appellants’ prolonged inaction in contesting the undertaking further weakened their defense. Therefore, while the punishment was partly modified on humanitarian grounds, the imposition of enhanced compensation ensures that judicial authority is not undermined, reaffirming the obligation to comply with court directives.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, reinforcing the importance of judicial authority while acknowledging humanitarian considerations. By upholding the High Court’s contempt ruling, the Court affirmed that willful disobedience of court undertakings cannot be condoned, particularly in cases where such undertakings directly affect property rights and legal obligations. The appellants’ argument that they were unaware of their counsel’s commitment was rightly dismissed, as legal representatives act on behalf of their clients, and their undertakings are binding unless expressly countermanded. The Court’s reliance on precedents such as Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh and Sourendra Nath Mitra v. Tarubala Dasi reinforces the principle that legal representatives must act in accordance with their clients’ instructions but cannot unilaterally evade accountability for their commitments to the court. The appellants’ failure to challenge the undertaking for nearly four years before violating it further solidified the finding of contempt, emphasizing that parties cannot later escape liability by pleading ignorance or oversight.

At the same time, the Court’s modification of the punishment demonstrates its pragmatic approach in balancing deterrence with fairness. While upholding the conviction to safeguard the sanctity of court orders, the Court recognized the humanitarian concerns surrounding the advanced age and health of appellant No.1, leading to the waiver of civil imprisonment. Instead, it imposed an increased monetary penalty, ensuring that the contemnors faced appropriate consequences without excessive hardship. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on contempt, where punitive measures are tailored to uphold judicial discipline without disproportionately penalizing individuals, as reaffirmed in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India. The ruling thus underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining its authority while exercising judicial discretion in a manner that balances enforcement with equitable considerations.