Supreme Court of India
M/S Sitaram Enterprises vs Prithviraj Vardichand Jain on 9 September, 2024
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, J.K. Maheshwari
‘REPORTABLE’
2024 INSC 685
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 196-197 OF 2024
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 12081-12082 OF 2023
M/s SITARAM ENTERPRISES Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PRITHVIRAJ VARDICHAND JAIN Respondent(s)
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.198-199 OF 2024
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 12083-12084 OF 2023
ORDER
“Disregarding a Court’s order may seem bold, but the
shadows of its consequences are long and cold.”
1. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nidhi Ahuja
Date: 2024.09.12
principles that underpin the rule of law. At its core, it is a
16:33:28 IST
Reason:
profound disavowal of the respect and adherence to the
1
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023judicial process, posing a concerning threat to integrity of
judicial system. 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. Therefore, power to punish
for Contempt of Court’s order is vital to safeguard the
authority and efficiency of the judicial system. By addressing
and penalizing 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.
2. 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
2
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
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.
3. The Courts ordinarily take lenient approach in a
case of some delay in compliance of the orders, unless the
same 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 and hence we are constrained to examine
Contemnor/tenant’s willful and deliberate act of non-
compliance of the order and also the undertaking furnished
by him as directed.
4. In the case at hand, the present
petitioner/landlord (in the contempt petitions) filed suits 1
before the Court of Small Causes at Bombay (Bandra Branch)
1 R.A.E. & R. Suit Nos.43/137 & 111/300 of 2003
3
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant (contemnor) from a
Shop No. 3 and Room No. 4 of the properties belonging to the
petitioner/landlord being Municipal House Nos. 427, 430 and
431 C.T.S. Nos. 38, 38/1 to 13 and T.P.S. Plot No.23 (part) of
Village Kanhari, Taluka Borivali B.S.D. situated at Corner of 9
Kasturba Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400066 on the
ground of bona fide need and also due to non-payment of
rent and arrears against the respondent/tenant.
4.1 The said suits were decreed by the Trial Court vide
Judgment dated 21.08.2015. Aggrieved against the same, the
respondent/tenant preferred appeals2 before the Appellate
Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bandra, Mumbai. The
same were dismissed vide judgment dated 25.08.2022.
4.2 Being dissatisfied, the respondent/tenant
challenged the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court
before the High Court3 by filing Civil Revisions4, which were
dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2022. It appears that the
intention of the respondent/tenant was to prolong the
litigation, he filed review petitions5, which were also
2 Appeal Nos.39 and 40 of 2015
3 High Court of Judicature at Bombay
4 Civil Revision Application Nos.453 of 2022 and 454 of 2022
5 Review Petition Nos.9 and 10 of 2022
4
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 07.12.2022.
4.3 As the litigation was not to end there only, the
respondent/tenant challenged the aforesaid common order
passed by the High Court by filing the Special Leave Petitions 6
before this Court.
4.4 When the matter was listed before this Court on
06.06.2023, the petitioner/landlord appeared on caveat. After
hearing learned counsel for the respondent/tenant, this Court
did not find any merit in the Special Leave Petitions and
accordingly, the same were dismissed and granted nine (9)
months’ time to vacate the premises subject to filing of
undertaking and affidavit by tenant before this Court. Till
vacation of the said premises, the respondent/tenant was
liable to pay charges for use and occupation equivalent to the
monthly rent. The order specifically mention that breach of
undertaking might give rise to contempt proceedings.
4.5 The respondent/tenant failed to furnish the
undertaking as envisaged in the order passed by this Court
on 06.06.2023, and filed the Review Petitions 7 which were
6 Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12081-12082 of 2023
7 Review Petitions arising out of R.P. Diary No.26984 of 2023
5
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
also dismissed by this Court on 07.02.2024.
4.6 It appears that contemnor intended to retain
possession, hence, he had filed applications seeking
extension of time to vacate the premises, and only at that
time he furnished the undertaking/affidavit dated 22.02.2024.
Those applications were registered as M.A. Nos. 405-406 of
2024 & M.A. Nos. 407-408 of 2024, and were dismissed on
04.03.2024. This Court has not allowed extension of time as
prayed and the nine months period granted by this Court was
to expire on 06.03.2024.
5. The petitioner-landlord in this fact situation got a
notice8 issued to the respondent/tenant calling upon him to
hand over the physical possession of the suit premises on
06.03.2024 by 11:00 a.m. and vacate the same. Yet the
possession of the premises in dispute was not handed over,
therefore, the present contempt petitions were filed.
6. Upon issuing notice on 26.04.2024 returnable on
09.07.2024, it was directed that the alleged contemnor will
remain present in the Court. On the date fixed, Mr. Chander
Prakash Mishra, Advocate, appeared on his behalf, but he
8 Dated 04.03.2024
6
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
himself did not appear, though as per Office Report, service
on respondent/tenant was not complete. The counsel
representing him sought two weeks’ time to file counter
affidavit on the pretext that the respondent is hospitalized. As
prayed time was allowed upto 29.07.2024 with direction to
contemnor to remain present in Court on the next date of
hearing.
7. The Office Report dated 27.07.2024 indicates that
the counsel who had put appearance on behalf of the
respondent on 09.07.2024 had neither filed the vakalatanama
nor counter affidavit, therefore, while directing the physical
presence of contemnor, all the facts were noticed in detail in
the proceedings dated 29.07.2024. Again contemnor had
neither filed the counter affidavit nor appeared to show
respect and comply the orders of this Court. On the said
date, new counsel, Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh had put in
appearance on his behalf and said that Curative Petitions
have been filed, which are pending and the contemnor is
hospitalized. He sought time.
8. Noticing all the above said facts and his conduct,
this Court was prima-facie convinced that the respondent is
7
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
deliberately and willfully disobeying the orders, and despite
specific directions issued earlier, failed to appear in person.
Thus, to secure his attendance bailable warrant for his
presence on the next date i.e., 12.08.2024 was issued.
9. As per the proceedings dated 12.08.2024, it is
clear that despite service of bailable warrant,
respondent/contemnor neither appeared nor filed any
application seeking exemption from personal appearance
clearly stating the reasons for his absence. In the said sequel
of events, this Court was constrained to issue non-bailable
warrant of arrest for securing his presence and for compliance
of the orders to vacate the suit premises, fixing the matter on
02.09.2024. As per office report, non-bailable warrant issued
could not be served on his address for the reason that the son
of contemnor who was found present at the shop and the wife
at home informed the police officials that the
respondent/contemnor has gone to Delhi in connection with
the case.
10. In addition the conduct of the
respondent/contemnor was unveiled by his earlier counsel
Shri Prakash Kumar Singh present in Court on 02.09.2024,
8
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
who informed that he has received the message from
contemnor not to appear on his behalf and as stated by him,
it was recorded in the order. The order dated 02.09.2024 is
relevant to show his conduct, therefore, extracted below for
ready reference:
“5. Shri Prakash Kumar Singh, Advocate on
Record, who was appearing on behalf of the
respondent-contemnor, has stated that he has
received a telephonic call on his Mobile No.
9891223681 from Mobile No. 9146553252
supposed to be a mobile of contemnor or his
son and received the messages. One of the
messages regarding his disengagement and
non-appearance on next date is reproduced as
under:
“To,
Mr. Prakash Singh Tomar.
From, Prithviraj Vardichand Jain.
Date: 01/09/2024
Sir, as I have informed you earlier that
you will not be appear in my matter, which
is listed on 2nd September, therefore I am
sending reminder to you that please don’t
appear in my case & I have appointed a
new Advocate for pursuing my case. So pls
take note for the same.”
6. The photocopy of the said scanned
9
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023message and other connected communications
have been placed on record of this file.
7. We request learned counsel to save
these messages in his mobile number in
original form and may not be deleted until
further orders of this Court.
8. Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, Advocate on
Record, in view of the said message seeks
discharge from appearing in the matter. We
discharge him from appearance but at present,
we are not disassociating from this case.
9. The new Advocate on Record Mr.
Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, is not present in the
Court as informed by the learned counsel Mr.
Nityanand Singh now appearing for contemnor.
He states that Mr. Anil Kumar, son of the
contemnor, has visited to his office at Delhi and
met him. On his instructions, he has engaged
the AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra and now
he is appearing for the respondent-contemnor.
The son of contemnor has stated that his father
is bed ridden and not in a position to come and
appear in the Court. No application has been
filed on behalf of the contemnor indicating all
these facts seeking exemption and asking date
for his appearance in terms of the previous
orders.
10. In view of the factual scenario as
10
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
indicated hereinabove, it is clear that the
contemnor and his son both are aware of the
proceedings of the Court and watching it
thoroughly. It is also clear that contemnor has
not come to Delhi and his son Anil came and
contacted Mr. Nityanand Singh, Advocate, as
stated before us. Therefore, the information
furnished to the ASI by his son Mr. Rajesh and
his wife Ms. Mangibai is incorrect and on the
basis of such incorrect information, service of
non-bailable warrant of arrest has been
returned back to the Registrar of the Supreme
Court only by the Police Inspector without
supervising it by the Superintendent of the
Police/ACP of the concerned area.”
11. In view of the above and for the reasons recorded,
fresh non-bailable warrant was issued against
respondent/contemnor for securing his physical presence in
Court, clearly specifying that non execution of warrant may
cause appearance of Assistant Commissioner as well as the
Inspector of the police of the area.
12. Today, when the matter was taken up, the
respondent/contemnor has been produced in custody by Mr.
Devidas Sadashiv Pokale, Sub-Inspector of Mumbai Police,
11
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
accompanied with Mr. Sumer Singh (D-5896) Sub-Inspector
and Mr. Akash Yadav (2426/DAP) Head Constable, both of
Delhi Police posted at Tihar Jail. On appearance of contemnor,
no doubt he appears to be a senior citizen, however, to gain
sympathy of the Court started shedding tears. He showcased
difficulty in standing, however, 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. Then, he
pleaded that, he has no other place to shift his large family
and requested to grant him at least one month time to vacate
the suit premises. His newly engaged counsel also argued in
same line to grant time to hand over the possession of the
subject property.
13. From the above facts, on the cost of repetition, it is
necessary to observe that while dismissing the Special Leave
Petitions on 6.6.2023 being meritless, nine months’ time to
vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the suit
12
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
property was allowed. The contemnor was required to furnish
an undertaking in this regard, which was not initially
submitted by him. The contemnor continued to litigate and
filed Review Petitions, which were also dismissed on 7.2.2024.
Thereafter, he had chosen to file applications seeking
extension of time of nine months to vacate the suit premises.
On dismissal of said applications on 4.3.2024, the contemnor
has not vacated the suit premises though he was required to
do so on or before 6.3.2024. Even after filing of Contempt
Petition and appearance of the advocate in the matter on his
behalf, peaceful possession was not delivered to the landlord.
On an endeavour made by this Court to call him for delivery
of peaceful possession as directed by this Court on 6.6.2023,
he deliberately did not appear despite specific direction
issued at least three times for his personal appearance in the
Court. On service of bailable warrant for his presence, he did
not appear on the date so fixed. On issuance of the non-
bailable warrants of arrest, he and his family members
mislead the police official on account of which the said non-
bailable warrants could not be executed, as reflects and
extracted above in the order dated 02.09.2024. However,
13
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
when the second order was passed by this Court issuing fresh
non-bailable warrants, he was produced in the court. The
contemnor was unable to explain his conduct, as noticed
above and made a request that time to vacate the premises
may be extended till decision of the Curative Petition.
14. It is needless to observe that the Curative Petition is to
be decided in Chamber and the said recourse is not
permissible as a matter of right to the contemnor. Later, he
sought a month’s time to vacate the suit premises. 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 issued by
this Court to which he furnished an undertaking at a later
stage. It is to observe that on dismissal of Special Leave
Petitions on 6.6.2023 and lapse of nine months’ time on
6.3.2024, possession of the suit premises has not been
delivered to the petitioner landlord complying the order of
this Court. 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.
14
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
15. Considering all the facts and attending circumstances
narrated above, 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 non-
compliance of the directions of this Court. We also find no
substance in the explanation furnished by him, as discussed
above.
16. Upon holding the contemnor guilty of the contempt of
order of this Court, we had granted an opportunity to him
before we pass any order on sentence. Again the contemnor
submits that being old aged person, having many illness and
to support a large family, he may be granted pardon and be
allowed a week time to vacate the suit premises.
17. From the discussion made hereinabove, we were
reluctant to grant further time to vacate the suit premises,
but in the interest of justice, we grant a week’s time to hand
over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises
to the petitioner-landlord, otherwise, we direct that the order
passed by this Court on 6.6.2023 shall be complied with
taking forceful possession from him.
15
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
18. Accordingly, we dispose-of these petitions with
following directions –
18.1 The respondent/contemnor shall hand over vacant
possession of both the properties to M/s Sitaram Enterprises
as undertaken in furtherance to the order dated 06.06.2023
passed by this Court in SLP(C) Nos. 12081-12082/2023 (Diary
No.41124/2022) and SLP(C) Nos. 12083-12084/2023 (Diary
No.41118/2022) within a period of seven days.
18.2 In case of failure, within next seven days on a
warrant of possession issued by the 68 th Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Borivali West, Mumbai, the possession of the
properties in question shall be taken with the police help in
the presence of a Court Commissioner, who shall prepare
inventory of the material lying in the premises and handover
the same to the respondent/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.
18.3 Appropriate order in this regard shall be passed by
the said executing Court. After taking the possession from the
respondent/contemnor the same shall be handed over to the
16
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 196-197/2024 in SLP(C) No. 12081-12082/2023
petitioner/landlord and a report be sent to this Court.
18.4 Considering the age and health condition of the
contemnor, instead of sending him jail, he is sentenced till
rising of the Court and released as per the order passed in
the proceeding. It is further directed that amount spent by
the state exchequer in execution of the non-bailable warrants
and to produce the contemnor before this Court in the
Contempt Petitions and in execution of Court order shall be
borne by contemnor and recoverable against him. The
details of the amount spent shall be informed by the
competent authority to the contemnor and the executing
court within four weeks from today which shall be deposited
by the contemnor within four weeks thereafter.
19. Pending application if any, shall also stand
disposed-of.
……………………………………………., J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
……………………………………………., J.
[ RAJESH BINDAL ]
New Delhi;
September 09, 2024.
17