Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that disregarding a court’s order may seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold, as it convicted a man of contempt for wilful and deliberate non-compliance of an order to vacate a property in Mumbai.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, however, sentenced Prithviraj Vardichand Jain—who was brought before the court on a non-bailable warrant—to remain in custody until the court adjourned for the day. Additionally, he was directed to bear the amount spent for his arrest and warrant execution, which will be determined by the competent authority.

"Contempt of court is a serious legal infraction that strikes at the very soul of justice and the sanctity of legal proceedings. It goes beyond from mere defiance of a court’s authority, but also denotes a profound challenge to the principles that underpin the rule of law. At its core, it is a profound disavowal of the respect and adherence to the judicial process, posing a concerning threat to integrity of judicial system," the bench said.

The bench pointed out that when a party engages in contempt, it does more than simply refusing to comply with a court’s order. By failing to adhere to judicial directives, a contemnor not only disrespects the specific order, but also directly questions the court’s ability to uphold the rule of law. It erodes the public confidence in the judicial system and it’s ability to deliver justice impartially and effectively, the bench said.

"Therefore, power to punish for Contempt of Court’s order is is vital to safeguard the authority and efficiency of the judicial system. By addressing and penalising contemptuous conduct, the legal system reinforces its own legitimacy and ensures that judicial orders and proceedings are taken seriously. This deterrent effect helps to maintain the rule of law and reinforces public’s faith in the judicial process, ensuring that Courts can function effectively without undue interference or disrespect," the bench said.

The court emphasised that contempt powers are integral to maintaining the sanctity of judicial proceedings. 

"The ability to address contempt ensures that the authority of the court is respected and that the administration of justice is not hampered by willful disobedience. In the said context, the power of this court to punish for contempt is a cornerstone of its authority, integral to the administration of justice and the maintenance of its own dignity. Enshrined in Article 129 of the Constitution of India, this power is essential for upholding the rule of law and ensuring due compliance by addressing actions that undermine its authority, obstruct its proceedings, or diminish the public trust and confidence in the judicial system," the bench said.

The bench also said that the courts ordinarily take lenient approach in a case of some delay in compliance of the orders, unless it is deliberate and willful, on confronting the conduct of the contemnor that strikes the very heart of judicial authority.

"Undoubtedly, this appalling breach of legal decorum has in its face challenged the sanctity of the orders passed by this court," the bench said.

Court observed that when the tenant appeared, it was evident he was a senior citizen, but he seemed to be trying to gain sympathy by crying. He claimed to have difficulty standing, so the court offered him a chair and a glass of water. 

"On being asked why he has not yet complied the orders, it was submitted by him that he is a poor person with large family to support, and apologised for his conduct and later sought pardon. In the same breath he said that the curative petitions filed by him are still pending, and until those are decided, time may be granted," the bench noted.

Court added that the tenant then pleaded for at least a month to vacate the premises, stating he had no other place for his large family.

While dismissing the special leave petitions on June 6, 2023, as meritless, the court noted that he had already been given nine months to vacate and peacefully surrender the property.

He then submitted an undertaking but continued to pursue litigation. His review petition was dismissed on February 7, 2024, and his request for an extension was also denied. He was required to vacate the premises by March 6, 2024.

Thereafter, despite the filing of a contempt petition, the tenant failed to vacate the property. When a bailable warrant was issued for his appearance, he did not show up on the scheduled date. Following the issuance of non-bailable warrants for his arrest, his family misled the police. Eventually, when fresh non-bailable warrants were issued, he was produced in court.

"The contemnor was unable to explain his conduct, and made a request that time to vacate the premises may be extended till decision of the Curative Petition," the bench said, adding the curative petition is decided in the chamber and said recourse was not available to the contemnor.

"In our view, after dismissal of the special leave petitions, review petitions and applications for extension of time to vacate the suit premises, said prayer is wholly unreasonable and a deliberate attempt to not to comply the directions," the bench said.

From the date of expiry of time to hand over the possession i.e., 6.3.2024, six months’ further period has elapsed, even then compliance is not reported till today, the court noted.

"We are of the view that it is a case in which the contemnor has deliberately and willfully not complied the order of this Court dated 6.6.2023 and flouted the same. Therefore, we are constrained to hold him guilty for noncompliance of the directions of this Court. We also find no substance in the explanation furnished by him," the bench said.

Upon his plea, the court, however, granted one week's time to hand over the possession of the premises.

In case of failure, within the next seven days on a warrant of possession issued by the 68th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Borivali West, Mumbai, the court directed that the possession of the properties in question shall be taken with the police help in the presence of a Court Commissioner, who would prepare an inventory of the material lying in the premises and handover it to the contemnor against receipt.

Fee of the Court Commissioner to be paid and the cost of police help also shall be borne by the respondent/contemnor, the court ordered.

Case Title: M/s Sitaram Enterprises Vs Prithviraj Vardichand Jain