Summary
| Case Name | CONT P/711/2007 of JANAKIRAMAN (Deceased) and 5 others Vs G.P.SAVITHRI and another |
|---|---|
| CNR | HCMA010854322007 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2008 |
| Disposal Nature | CLOSED |
| Judgment Author | P.R. Shivakumar, J. |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Contempt of Court; Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that a recorded undertaking not to alienate property pending suit is binding, and a willful breach of such undertaking constitutes contempt. Upholding the ratio in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, the court found that deliberate alienation without court permission is contemptuous. It imposed a fine and declared that any alienation in breach of the undertaking can be set aside to restore the status quo. The power to nullify the sale deed flowed from the court’s inherent power in contempt proceedings, as recognised in DDA v. Skipper and Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Deliberate or willful breach of an undertaking recorded by court is contempt; court’s power in contempt proceedings includes nullifying the benefits obtained by contempt. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The respondent gave an undertaking not to alienate the suit property pending disposal of C.S. No. 784 of 2002. Despite this, she executed a sale deed dated 09.08.2006 in favour of M/s Gatraj Jain & Sons (HUF) without court permission. The petitioner alleged this amounted to contempt and sought nullification. |
Practical Impact
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the Madras High Court’s jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Any undertaking recorded in civil proceedings carries the force of a court order; willful breach is contempt.
- Contempt punishment may be limited to a fine where appropriate; imprisonment is discretionary.
- Courts can nullify any alienation made in breach of an undertaking to restore status quo ante.
- Parties must obtain court permission before alienating property after giving an undertaking, regardless of side agreements.
- Reinforces reliance on Supreme Court precedents in contempt matters involving undertakings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The respondent gave an undertaking in O.A. No. 188 of 2003 in C.S. No. 784 of 2002 not to alienate or encumber the suit property pending disposal.
- Execution of the sale deed on 09.08.2006 without court permission was found to be a deliberate violation.
- Applying Rama Narang and Bank of Baroda, the court confirmed that willful breach of undertaking constitutes contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- An apology was rejected as insufficient; the court imposed a fine of ₹1,000 with default imprisonment of one month.
- Relying on DDA v. Skipper and Satyabrata Biswas, the court held it had power to declare the sale deed null and void to deny any benefit to the contemner.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The respondent deliberately breached a court-recorded undertaking not to alienate the suit property.
- Such breach constitutes contempt warranting punishment.
- The sale deed executed in violation must be declared null and void.
Respondent
- Alleged the petitioner entered into a separate agreement with the purchaser’s daughter, inducing her to sell.
- Denied any deliberate intent to violate the undertaking; argued circumstances justified sale.
- Tendered an apology, seeking leniency if the act was viewed as contempt.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a suit in 2002 to cancel a 2001 sale deed as sham and sought an interim injunction in 2003. The respondent gave an undertaking not to alienate the property pending disposal. In 2006, she executed and registered a new sale deed in breach of that undertaking, leading to contempt proceedings and a sub-application to nullify the sale.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Penalty for contempt by disobedience of any direction, judgment, order or undertaking of the court.
- The court’s inherent power in contempt proceedings includes restoring status quo and nullifying acts done in violation of court orders or undertakings.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules were laid down; the court reinforced established contempt procedure regarding breach of undertaking.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms binding Supreme Court authority on contempt for breach of undertaking.
Citations
- Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114
- Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360
- Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Constructions Co., (1996) 4 SCC 622
- Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku, (1994) 2 SCC 266