Summary
The Supreme Court held a licensee of a resort property guilty of civil contempt for wilfully disobeying its interim order directing payment of use and occupation charges and arrears, rejecting the plea of penury raised for the first time after prolonged non-compliance, and sentenced him to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine, suspended for 30 days to allow him to purge the contempt.
Issues
- Whether the respondent's failure to pay any part of the use and occupation charges and arrears directed by the Supreme Court's order dated 07.11.2022 amounted to wilful disobedience constituting civil contempt.
- Whether the respondent's plea that non-compliance was due to financial incapacity, and not deliberate, was a defence to the charge of contempt.
- What punishment was warranted for the contempt.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(b), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Civil contempt means wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; the respondent's sustained non-payment despite the order being passed on his own prayer fell within this definition. (¶¶ 31, 32)
- Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Relying on Bank of India v. Vijay Transport, the Court observed that the contempt jurisdiction is exercised on satisfaction that contempt has been committed, which may be derived from the circumstances of the case, including the contemnor's conduct both before and after issuance of notice; finding a fine alone insufficient, it imposed imprisonment with fine. (¶¶ 35, 40, 41)
- Article 129, Constitution of IndiaReferred to, through the quoted passage from Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain, as the source of the Supreme Court's power to punish for its contempt, which was not disputed. (¶¶ 31, 37)
Held
- A party who obtains an interim order from the Court on his own submissions, conferring a benefit on him (continued possession with payment in instalments), and then fails to comply with it commits civil contempt; non-fulfilment of a mandate framed at the contemnor's own request reflects an intent to violate the order with impunity. (¶¶ 28, 30, 36)
- A plea of penury raised for the first time long after the order, by a person who remained in possession of and ran the income-generating property throughout and never accounted for its receipts, cannot excuse non-compliance; if compliance was impossible, the proper course was to seek modification or withdrawal of the order, not to ignore it. (¶¶ 18, 20, 27, 28, 29)
- Misleading the Court into passing an order that was never intended to be complied with, in order to exploit the procedural process, is a misuse of the process of the Court and amounts to contempt; such a litigant does not approach the Court with clean hands. (¶¶ 32, 33, 36, 38)
- The satisfaction that contempt has been committed may be drawn from the circumstances of the case and the contemnor's conduct before as well as after issuance of notice. (¶ 35)
- Where the contemnor's conduct from beginning to end has been to take the Court for a ride and he shows no remorse or intention to comply, a mere fine does not suffice and imprisonment is warranted, with a final opportunity to purge the contempt. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42)
Result
Contempt proceedings disposed of; respondent held guilty of civil contempt and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000 payable within two weeks (default: one further month's simple imprisonment); punishment to take effect only if the order dated 07.11.2022 is not complied with within 30 days of the judgment, with a compliance report to the Registrar (Judicial) a week thereafter.