BANK OF BARODAversusSADRUDDIN HASAN DAYA AND ANR.

                                                                               1
A                            BANK OF BARODA                                    '
                                    . v.
                  SADRUDDIN HASAN DAY A AND ANR.

                            DECEMBER 12, 2003

B
              [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]

          Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sections 2(b) & 20-Consent decree
    passed by Supreme Court upon an undertaking given by contemnors not
    to alienate aitached properties till payment ofdefaulted amount to Bank-   f
c   Default in payment of amount-On execution before Debts Recovery
    Tribunal, Bank came to know that contemnors have entered into another
    similar consent decree with another Bank before High Court placing same
    properties under attachment-Contempt petition by Bank-Held, contemnors
    guilty of civil contempt for wilful breach of undertaking given to this
D   Court-Hence sentenced to imprisonment.

          Petitioner Bank filed a suit against respondents for recovery of
    certain amount of money. The respondents were granted unconditional
    leave to defend the Suit passed in Summons by the trial court. During      1.
    the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the petitioner and the
E
    respondents entered into a settlement. The appeal was disposed of by       ,,.-

    this Court with a consent decree. Under the settlement, the properties
                                                                               •
    of the respondents would remain attached with the petitioner till the
    payment of the defaulted amount with interest in instalments. The
    respondents further undertook not to sell, mortgage, alienate, encum-      ,.
F   her or charge the properties attached till the payment is made to the
    petitioner. The respondents committed default in payment of first ·
    instalment to the petitioner. The petitioner moved Debts Recovery
    Tribunal for execution of the consent decree passed by this Court. The
    petitioner came to know at the time of execution that the respondents
G   have entered into another consent decree with another Bank before the      i'
    High Court without disclosing the consent decree passed by this Court
    and placing the same properties under attachment. The respondents
    further filed written submissions before t~e Tribunal contending that
    the consent decree passed by this Court is without jurisdiction. Hence,
    the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition against the respondents before
H
                                      764
                 BANK OF BARODA v. S.H. DAYA                       765

this Court.                                                              A
     The petitioner contended that the respondents alienated the
attached properties in violation of the consent decree passed by this
Court by entering into a consent decree with another Bank approved
by High Court; and that they have made contemptuous statement
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that the decree passed by this B
Court is a nullity.

      The respondent-contemnors contended that non-compliance of
the terms of a consent decree by them does not amount to contempt
of Court; that the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden beyond C
reasonable doubt to prove that the respondents have committed
Contempt of Court; and that the contempt proceedings initiated by the
petitioners is barred by limitation under section 20 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971.

     Allowing the Contempt Petitions and sentencing the contemners, D
the Court

     HELD : 1.1. After filing the consent terms and passing of the
decree by this Court, it was not open to the respondents to file consent
terms in another suit whereunder the same properties were to remain E
under attachment till the decree passed in the suit was satisfied and
in the event of the decree in the suit becoming executable, the Court
Receiver would have power to sell the properties and to pay over the
sale proceeds to the plaintiff of the suit. It is therefore clear that by
the consent terms filed by the respondents before the High Court in F
the suit instituted by another Bank on the basis of which the another
suit was disposed of, the undertaking given before this Court not to
encumber or charge the attached properties to anyone until the decree
was satisfied was clearly violated. [775-C-El

      1.2. A lega.I plea taken by a party that a decree passed by a Court G
(including Supreme Court) is without jurisdiction and therefore a
nullity will not normally amount to a contemptuous statement. It is not
the case of the respondents that any fraud was played upon them by
any party when they entered into a settlement and signed the minutes
of the decree. It appears that the respondents from the very inception H
    766               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A had no intention of paying the amount, but they agreed for a settlement
    and consent terms only for the purpose of gaining time whereunder
    instalments were fixed. They adopted the same procedure in another
    suit by another Bank wherein they offered the same property to remain
    under attachment till the decree was satisfied. Placing the same
B   property under attachment is bound to create problems for the decree
    holders of either of the suit as no one wants to buy such' property ·in
    court auction which may land him in iurther litigation. The respond-
    ents intentionally and deliberately adopted such a course of action so
    that further hurdles may come in the way of execution of the decree
C   and therefore it is clearly a case of wilful breach of an undertaking
    given to the Court. (775-E-H; 776-A-C]

          1.3. The wilful breach ofan undertaking given to a Court amounts
    to 'civil contempt' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt
    of Courts Act, 1971. The respondents, having committed breach of the
D   undertaking given to this Court in the consent terms, clearly are liable
    for having committed contempt of Court. The fact that the petitioner
    can execute the decree can have no bearing on the contempt committed
    by the respondents. (777-A-C]

         Bajranglal Khemka v. Kapurchand Ltd., AIR (1950) Bombay 336;
E   Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & Ors., (2001) 3 SCR
                                                                                I
    739 and Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin & Anr.: (1979) 3 SCR 685,           '
    referred to.

          Halbury's Laws of England, Volume (1), referred to.
F
          1.4. The respondents had filed consent terms in this Court but the
    same contained an undertaking that they would not alienate, encumber
    or charge the properties to anyone until the decree was satisfied. Acting
    upon this undertaking and the consent terms, this Court passed the
    decree whereunder the respondents were given the facility of depos-
G   iting the amount in instalments. This Court, therefore, put its impri-
    matur upon the consent terms and made it a decree of the Court. The
    violation or breach of the undertaking which became part oftlie decr~e
    of the Court certainly amounts to contempt of Court, irrespective of
    the fact that it is open to the decree holder to execute the decree.
H   Contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemner
                 BANK OF BARODA v. S.H. DAYA                        767
and is not affected in any manner by the rights or obligations of the A
parties to the litigation inter se. (778-D-F]

     1.5. The power to punish for contempt must always be exercised
consciously, wisely and with circumspection. At the same time, the Court
should act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardised by B
a grossly contemptuous act of a party. If the judiciary is to perform its
duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they
are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to
be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very corner stone
of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the
rule of law and civilized life in the society. (779-D-F)                  C
     In Re. Vinay Chandra Misra, (1995) 2 SCC 584, referred to.

      1.6. From the facts and circumstances, there is no occasion for
showing any leniency in the matter of punishment. The respondents D
have committed contempt of Court for which they are sentenced to
undergo four months imprisonment. After undergoing 15 days impris-
onment, the respondents shall be released on short term bail for a
period of three months on their furnishing bail bonds etc. to the
satisfaction of the Registrar, High Court. If during this period of three E
months, they deposit the entire amount in terms of the consent decree,
the sentence of four months imprisonment imposed on them shall be
reduced to the period already undergone, failing which they •viii
undergo the balance· period of imprisonment. (780-A-C, 779-G-H]

      2. The petitionc,. Bank has stated in the contempt petition that it F
has learnt about the consent decree passed in the case of another Bank
during the course of execution proceedings before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal when steps were taken to attach the aforesaid three proper-
ties. The respondents have neither controverted the said fact nor have
placed any material to show that the petitioners got.knowledge of the G
consent ter~s filed by the respondents in the High Court at any time
prior thereto. The petitioners filed the petition within five months of.
getting knowledge of the undertaking given by the respondents. In such
a situation, the proceedings initiated against the respondents cannot be
held to be barred by limitation since the period of lii;nitation has to be H
    768                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003]"SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A   counted from the date of knowledge. {776-E-G)

          Pal/av Sheth v. Custodian, (2001)°7 SCC 549, relied on.

         CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No. 180
    of 2001.
B
                                         IN

          Civil Appeal No. 4138 of 1999.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.98 of the Bombay High
C   Court in Summons for Judt No. 580196 in Summary Suit No. 2949 of 1996.

          Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General and Ms. Indu Malhotra
    for the Appellant.

D        R.F. Nariman, C.A. Sundram, P.H. Parekh, Gopal Jain, Arun Francis
    and Sameer Parekh for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          G.P. MATHUR, J. : 1. This petition has been preferred by Bank of
E Baroda for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents;
    Sadruddin Hasan Daya and Shohin S. Daya. The facts leading to the filing
                                                                                    i
    of the contempt petition are as under.                                          :
                                                                                    I


         2. The Bank of Baroda filed Summary Suit No. 2949 of 1996 against
   (1) M/s Dawood & Co. (2) Sadruddin Hasan Daya and (3) Shohin S. Daya
F for recovery of certain amount of money. The respondents were granted
   unconditional leave to defend the suit by the order dated 15.4.1998 passed
 . in Summons for Judgment No. 580 of 1996. This order was challenged by
   the petitioner Bank of Baroda by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
   2730 of 1999, which was renumbered as Civil Appeal No. 4138of1999.
G During the pendency of the Appeal, the parties arrived at a settlement, the
   minutes of the decree were drawn and the same were placed on record.
   By the order dated 28.7.1999, the appeal was disposed of with a direction
   that there shal I be a decree in terms of the minutes of the decree drawn
   by learned counsel for the parties. As per the said consent terms the parties,
H inter alia, agreed that the respondents (defendants) would pay to the
       BANK OF BARODA v. S.H. DA YA [G.P. MATHUR, J.]                769

petitioner (plaintiff) Rs. 2,44,71,616 and Rs. 2,40,69,447 together with A
interest thereon as specified, in accordance with the schedule of instalments
mentioned in paras 3(a) and 4(a) respectively of the said order. It was
further agreed between the parties that in the event of default by the
respondents to abide by the said consent terms as per Clauses 3 and 4, the
remaining amount shall forthwith become due and payable and the B
petitioner (plaintiff) will become entitled to execute the decree. Clauses
S(a), S(b), 7 and 9 of the consent terms, which are relevant, are being
reproduced below :

        "S(a) The properties namely at Versova, Madh Island and Alibagh
              mentioned in the Order dated 6th May 1988 shall remain C
              under attachment in Execution till the decree as set out in
             Clause (2) hereinabove is fully satisfied.

        S(b) In case of decree{s) becoming .executable as provided in
             Clauses 3 or 4 above, the said properties at Versova, Madh D
             Island and Alibagh or anyone of them as may be required
             be sold in execution of the decree by the Court Receiver of
             the High Court of Bombay. The Court Receiver is hereby
             appointed in Execution. He shall however proceed only if
             default is committed in Clauses 3 and 4 above. Leave to
             execute the decree under Rule 314 of Bombay High Court E
             (O.S.) Rules is granted. The Court Receiver to pay over the
             net sale proceeds to the plaintiffs in or towards satisfaction
             cf the decree(s) herein. There are other suits against the
             Defendants in which attachment before judgment orders and
             or injunctions are passed inter alia in respect of the said F
             properties. However, the same will not affect the sale, which
             will be in Execution of the decree(s) passed herein.

        7.    The Defendants undertake not to sell, mortgage, alienate,
              encumber or charge the said properties described herein<tbove G
              to anyone until the decree as per Clause 2 above is satisfied.

        9.    All the orders passed in Suit No. 2949 of 1996 and the
              proceedings therein including the Summons for Judgment
              No. 58_0of1996, Re· 1iew Petition No. 36 of 1998 and Appeal
              Nos. 540 and 543 of 1998 are set aside and the said suit and H
    770                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A                  all proceedings connected therewith are disposed of in terms
                   of this order."

          3. Oman International Bank, SAOD had also filed Summary Suit No.
    4571 of 1996 against M/s Dawood & Co. and the respondents for recovery
B   of certain amount in Bombay High Court. Against an order passed in
    Summons for Judgment No. 493 of 1997 in the said suit, an appeal was
    preferred by M/s Dawood & Co. & others before the Division Bench,
    wherein the parties entered into a settlement. The appeal was disposed of
    in terms of the consent terms by the order dated 5.10.1999, which reads
    as under :
c
                 "Undertaking given to this Court by the Appellants in terms
            of the Consent Terms is accepted. The Consent Terms taken on
            record and marked 'X'. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the
            Consent Terms which would be binding on the parties ........"
D
          Under the Consent Terms, the defendants had to pay a sum of Rs.
    l,l l,27,146 together with interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum
    in quarterly instalments. Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Consent Terms, which
    formed part of the decree are being reproduced below :

E            "5.   Agreed, declared and confirmed that the immovable prop-
                   erties belonging to and owned by the Appellants situated at:

                   (a)   Land, building and structure standing on Moon-Dust
                         Property, J.P. Road, Versova, Andheri (e), Mumbai
F                        400 058,

                   (b)   Land, building and structure standing on Fazalbhai
                         Wadi, Erangal village, area of Madh Island, Malad
                         (W), Mumbai.

G                  (c)   Land, ·building and structure standing on Survey No.
                         54/3, 56 at village Revadanda, Taluka Alibaug, District
                         Raigad.

                   (d)   Land, building and structure standing on Survey No.
H                        35-3A-B, Survey No. 35/3A, Barashir (Murud).
       BANK OF BARODA v. S.H. DAYA [G.P. MATHUR, J.]               771
             shall continue to remain under attachment as attached A
             pursuant to the Order dated 20th December, 1996 passed
             in Notice of Motion No. 111 of 1997 till the decree is fully
             satisfied.

        6.   In the event of the decree becoming executable as contem-
             plated under clause 4 above, the Court Receiver, High Court B
             Bombay shall stand appointed Receiver in execution in
             respect of the properties set out in clause 5 above with power
             to sell and shall effect sale in the serial order in which the
             properties are set out in clause 5 and pay over the net sale
             proceeds to the Respondents towards the satisfaction of the C
             decree.

        7.   The appellants hereby undertake to this Hon 'ble Court not
             to alienate, encumber or create third party right or part with
             possession of any of the properties set out in clause 5 D
             hereinabove till satisfaction of the decree.

        8.   In view of the decree herein the Order passed on Summons
             for Judgment No. 493 of 1997 dated 6th July, 1999 is set
             aside and the Order passed on the Notice of Motion No. 111
             of 1999 is vacated except to the extent set out in clause 5 E
             above."

         4. The respondents (defendants), however, committed default and did
not deposit any amount though the first instalment had fallen due on
 l. l l .1999 and consequently the decree became executable forthwith. The
petitioner (Bank of Baroda) accordingly moved the Court Receiver, High F
Court of Bombay, to execute the decree, but the Court Receiver could not
take any positive steps to recover the amount. The petitioners thereafter
moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bombay, in May 2000 for execution
of the consent decree dated 28. 7 .1999. The Debts Recovery Tribunal then
sent a demand notice to Mis Dawood & Co. and the respondents herein G
on 31.7.2000 directing them to comply with the decree and to deposit the
amount. The respondents thereafter filed a written submission before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal on 18.9.2000 on the ground, inter alia, that the
decree passed by the Supreme Court on 28.7.1999 was without jurisdiction.
Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the written submission are being reproduced below: H
    772                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A            "3. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, in view of the provision
              of Sections 17, 18 and 25 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks
            .and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the Notification dated
              16th July, 1999, with due respect to the Hon'ble Supreme Court
              and without meaning any disrespect to the Hon'ble Supreme
             Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to pass any
B
             decree dated 28th July, 1999 and such decree has no validity
              considering the provisions of the said Recovery of Debts due to
              Banks and Financial Institutions Act, hereinabove. Thus based on
              such a decree, no recovery proceedings can be initiated including
             ·issuance of a Demand Notice.
c
             5. The applicants in the light of the aforesaid facts and circum-
             stances and the law as laid down submit to the Hon'ble Tribunal
             that in the absence of.adjudication having taken place and in the
             absence of any Recovery Certificate having been issued and in
D            view .of the fact that the decree has been passed by the Hon 'ble
             Supreme Court without jurisdiction and is hence a nullity, the
             present Demand Notice dated 3-lst July, 2000 ought to be set
             aside."

E         5. The present Contempt Petition has been filed on the grounds, inter
    alia, that in the suit instituted by Oman International Bank SAOD the         :
    respondent, without disclosing the consent decree dated 28.7.1999 passed
    by this Court, entered into a settlement whereby a consent decree was
    passed by the Bombay High Court on 5.10.1999 and thereby they violated
    the undertaking given in Clause 7 of the consent decree and further they
F   made contemptuous statement before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bom-
    bay that the decree passed by this Court was a nullity.

          6. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned counsel for the petitioners has
                                                                           .
    submitted that under para 7 of the consent terms, the respondents had
G   undertaken not to sell, mortgage, alienate, enclumber or charge the
    properties situate at Varsova, Madh Island and Alibaug until the decree was
    satisfied. However, in Summary Suit No. 4571 of.1996 instituted by Oman
    International Bank, SAOD in the Bombay High Court, the respondents
    entered into a settlement just two months thereafter on 5.10.1999, wherein
H   they gave an undertaking that the same three_ properties and one more
       BANK OF BARODA v. S.H. DAYA [G.P. MATHUR, J.]                  773

situate at Barashir (Murud) shall remain under attachment till the decree A
in the said suit was satisfied and further undertook not to alienate,
encumber or create third party right over the said properties. While entering
into the settlement in Summary Suit No. 4571 of 1996 before the Bombay
High Court, the respondents deliberately concealed the settlement entered
into and the undertaking given by them resulting in passing of the consent B
decree by the Supreme Court on 28.7.1999. Learned counsel has further
submitted that the written submission filed by the respondents on 18.9.2000
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bombay, wherein they stated that the
Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree dated 28.7.1999 and
the said decree had no validity, was without jurisdiction and a nullity and C
therefore no recovery proceedings could be initiated in pursuance thereof,
was highly contemptuous statement. It is thus submitted that the respond~
ents have committed contempt of this Court and they are accordingly liable
to be punished for the same.

      7. Shri R.F. Nari man, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent D
No. I, has submitted that the contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in
nature and as such the standard of proof required is that of criminal
proceedings and the breach or violation has to be established beyond
reasonable doubt. If two equally consistent possibilities are present, it
would not be right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable E
doubt. Learned counsel has also submitted that like all criminal cases the
burden to establish that the respondents have committed contempt of Court
is upon the petitioner. In support of his submissions learned counsel has
referred to a decision of this Court in Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v. Sayed
Hasibur Rahaman & Ors., [2001] 3 SCC 739. Shri Nariman has further F
submitted that non-compliance of the terms of a consent order or decree
cannot amount to contempt of Court and the remedy of the aggrieved party
is to apply for execution of decree. In support of this submission reliance
is placed on Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin & Anr., [1979] 3 SCR 685,
wherein it was held as under :
                                                                            G
         "l. The act of the appellant in not complying with the terms of
         the consent order did not amount to an offence under ·S. 2(b ),
         however improper or reprehensible his conduct might be.

         2. When a person appearing before a court files an application or H
    774               SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A           affidavit giving an undertaking to the court or when he clearly and
            expressly gives an oral undertaking which is incorporated by the
            court in its order and fails to honour that undertaking then a wilful
            breach of the undertaking would amount to an ·offence punishable
            under the Act. An ·undertaking given by one of the parties should
            be carefully construed by the Court to find -Cmt the nature and
B
            extent of the undertaking given by the person concerned. It is not
            open to the Court to assume an implied undertaking when there
            is none on the record.

            3. While it is the duty of the court to punish a person who tries
c           to obstruct the course of justice or brings into disrepute the
            institution of judiciary this power has to be exercised not casually
            or lightly, but with great care and circumspection. Contempt
            proceedings serve a dual purpose of vindication of the public
            interest by punishment of the contumacious conduct and coercion
D           to compel to contemner to do what the law requires of him ..

             4. The reason why a breach of clear undertaking amounts to
           · contempt of court is that the contemn er by making false represen-
             tation would obtain the benefit and if he fails to honour that
             undertaking he plays a serious fraud on the court itselfand thereby
E            obstructs the course of justice and .brings the judicial institution
             into· disrepute. The same cannot, be said of a c·onsent order or
             compromise decree where the fraud is played not on the court but
             on one of the parties. The offence committed is qua a party and
             not qua the court and therefore the very foundation for proceeding
F            for contempt of court is completely absent in such cases."

          8. In view of the facts of the case and the submissions made by the
    parties, the pdncipal question to be examined is whether the respondents
    have committed breach of any undertaking given by them.
G
         9. In the consent terms filed by the respondents before this Court on
    the basis whereof the decree dated 28.7.1999 was passed, it is clearly
    mentioned that the properties at Varsova, Madh Island and Alibaug shall
    remain under attachment in execution and in Clause 7, the respondents
H   (defendants) undertook not to sell, mortgage, alienate, encumber or charge
             BANK OF BARODA v. S.H. DAY A [G.P. MATHUR, J.]                    775

     the aforesaid properties to anyone until the decree as per Clause 2 was A
     satisfied. It is an admitted position that the respondents did not make any
     payment whatsoever. However, just two months thereafter, in Summary
     Suit No. 4571 of 1996 instituted by Oman International Bank SAOD in
     the Bombay High Court, the respondents entered into a settlement on
     5.10.1999 where under they offered and placed the same three properties B
     and one more under attachment till the satisfaction of the decree passed
     in the said suit. They further agreed that in the event the decree in the suit
     became executable, the Court Receiver, Bombay High Court, shall stand
     appointed as Receiver in execution in respect of the aforesaid properties
     with power to sell and pay over the net sale proceeds to the plaintiff towards C
     the satisfaction of the decree. After filing of the consent terms and passing
     of the decree by this Court, it was not open to the respondents to file
     consent terms in another suit whereunder the same properties were to
     remain under attachment till the decree passed in the said suit was satisfied
     and in the event of the decree in the said suit becoming executable, the
      Court Receiver would have power to sell the said properties and to pay D
      over the sale proceeds to the plaintiff of the said suit. It is, therefore, clear
      that by the consent terms filed by the respondents before the Bombay High
      Court in the suit instituted by Oman Intqnational Bank, SAOD, on the
      basis of which the said suit was disposed of, the undertaking given before
     this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4138 of 1999 not to encumber or charge E
·,
     the aforesaid three prope1ties to anyone until the decree was satisfied, was
     clearly violated.

           10. A legal plea taken by a party that a decree passed by a Court
     (including Supreme Court) is without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity,
     will not normally amount to a contemptuous statement. However, the F
     written submission made by the respondents before the Debts Recovery
     Tribunal, wherein they said that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction pass
     the decree dated 28.7.1999 and the decree had no validity and is a nullity,
     has to be seen in the factual background of the case. It may be noted that
     the decree had been passed on the basis of consent terms. It is not the case G
     of the respondents that any fraud was played upon them by any party when
     they entered into a settlement and signed the minutes of the decree. It
     appears that the respondents from the very inception had no intention of
     paying the amount, but they agreed for a settlement and consent terms only
     for the purpose of gaining time whereunder instalments were fixed. They H
    776                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A adopted the same procedure in the suit instituted by Oman International
  Bank, SAOD, ·wherein they offered the same property to remain under
  attachment till the decree was satisfied. Placing the same property under
  attachment is bound to create problems for the decree holders of either of
  the suits as no one wants to buy such property in court auction which may
B land him in further litigation. ·The respondents intentionally and deliber-
  ately adopted such a course of a~tion so that further hurdles may come in
  the, way of execution of the decree and therefore it is clearly a case of
  willful breach of an undertaking given to the Court~

          11. One of the pleas taken in the reply filed by the respondents is that
C they had given the undertaking before the Bombay High Court on
  5.10.1999 but the present petition for initiating contempt proceedings
  against. them was filed after more than one year in May 2001 and
  consequently, the same was barred by limitation by virtue of Section 20
  of the Contempt of Courts Act. In this connection it may be noticed that
D the-petitioners ar~ not party to Summary Suit No. 4571 of 1996 which was
  instituted by Oman International Bank, SAOD in Bombay High Court
  wherein the respondents entered into a settlement and gave an undertaking
  in the consent terms on 5.10.1999. Normally, a person who is not a party
  to the suit or proceedings can get no knowledge of the affidavits or
E documents filed therein. It is categorically stated in para 14 of the present
  petition that in January, 2001 the petitioners learnt about the consent decree
  passed in the case of Oman International Bank during the course of
  execution proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, when steps
  were taken to attach the aforesaid three properties. The respondents have
F neither controverted the said fact nor have placed any material to show that
  the petitioners got knowledge of the consent terms filed by the respondents
  in the Bombay High Court at any time prior thereto. The petitioners filed
  the present application within five months of getting knowledge of the
  undertaking given by the respondents in the aforesaid case. In such a
  situation, the proceedings initiated against the respondents cannot be held.
G to be barred by limitation in view of the law laid down by this Court in
  Pal/av Sheth v. Custodian, (2001] 7 SCC 549 (paragraphs 44 and 47),
  wherein it has been held that the period of limitation in a case like the
  present one has to be counted from the date of knowledge.

          12. ,.he submission of Shri R.F. Nariman, learned counsel for the
H
        BANK OF BARODA v. S.H. DAYA [G.P. MATHUR, J.]                  777

respondents, that this Court having passed a consent decree, the remedy A
of the petitioner lay in executing the same and there was no occasion for
initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents has hardly any
merit. The willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court amounts to
;'civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2(b) Contempt of Courts
Act. The respondents having committed breach of the undertaking given B
to this Court in the consent terms filed on 28.7. l 999, they are clearly liable
for having committed contempt of Court. The fact that the petitioner can
execute the decree can have no bearing on the contempt committed by the
respondents. The law in England on the subject of breach of undertaking
given to Court is same. In Volume 9(1) Halsbury's Laws of England Para C
482, it has been stated as under :

              "An undertaking given to the court in pending proceedings
         by a person or corporation (or by a government department or
         Minister of the Crown acting in his official capacity) on the faith
         of which the court sanctions a particular course of action or D
         inaction, has the same force as an injunction made by the court
         and a breach of the undertaking is misconduct amounting to
         contempt."

      13. An identical argument was considered and repelled in Bajranglal E
Khemka v. Kapurchand Ltd., AIR (1950) Bombay 336. Here a suit for
specific performance of an agreement of sale was filed wherein parties
entered into a compromise and the consent terms were reduced to writing
and were signed by counsel for the parties. One of the terms was with
regard to execution of a lease within a period of two months by the
defendants in favour of the plaintiff in respect of property in suit and the F.
defendants further undertook to have Paradise Cinema Ltd. To join as a
confirming party to the lease. The defendants having failed to execute the
lease as agreed, execution proceedings were taken out. The plaintiffs called
upon the defendants to get the Paradise Cinema Ltd. to join as a confirming
party to. the lease and the defendants having failed to comply with that G
requisition, a Motion was taken out for contempt of Court. The Trial Judge
(Justice N.H. Bhagwati) held that there was a willful default on the part
of the defendants and thereupon he ordered that the defendants should
carry out their u:adertaking within one month from the date on which the
order was passed, otherwise a warrant was to issue for the committal of H
    778                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003j SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A the defendants to prison. In appeal against the said order Chagla, CJ and
    Gajendragadkar, J. after a detailed consideration of the law on the subject,
    held as under :

             "There is no reason why even in a consent decree a party may
             not give an undertaking to the Court. Although the Court may be
B            bound to record a compromise still, when the Court passes a
             decree, it puts its imprimatur upon those terms and makes the .
             terms a rule of the Court; and it would be open to the Court, before
             it did so, to accept an undertaking given by a party to the Court.
             Therefore, there is.nothing contrary to any provision of the law
c            whereby an undertaking cannot be given by a party to the Court
             in the consent decree, which undertaking can be enforced by
             proper committal proceedings."

          14. The respondents had filed consent terms in this Court but the same
D   contained an undertaking that they would not alienate, encumber or charge
    the properties to anyone until the decree was satisfied. Acting upon this
    undertaking and the consent terms, this Court passed the decree whereunder
    the respondents (defendants) were given the facility of depositing the
    amount in eight quarterly instalments commencing from l st November,
     1999 to l st August, 200 l, This Court, therefore, put its imprimatur upon
E   the consent terms and made it a decree of the Court. The violatfon or breach
    of the undertaking which became part of the decree.of the Court certainly
    amounts to contempt of Court, irrespective of the fact that it is open to the
    decree holder to execute the decree. Contempt is a matter between the
    Court and the alleged contemner and is not affected in any manner by the
F   rights or obligations of the parties to the litigation inter se.

        15. Shri Nariman has referred to the affidavit filed by respondent No;
  I before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bombay in ,the recovery proceed-
  ings initiated by Oman International Bank, SAOD and has submitted that
G the respondents have no money or assets apart from the immovable
  property, which is lying under attachment, to pay the amount. Learned
  counsel has also submitted that the respondents have themselves tried their
  best to secure a purchaser for the property at Varsova which is the only
  valuable property in order to pay the amount to the petitioner.. Copy of a
H letter sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bombay on
             BANK OF BARODA v. S.H. DAYA [G.P. MATHUR, J.]                 779

       I 0.10.2003 by the Solicitors of an intending buyer, who had made an offer A
      to purchase the said property for Rs. 3 crores along with a demand draft
      of Rs. 30 lakhs was also placed before us. Shri Rohtagi, learned Additional
       Solicitor General has, on the other hand, submitted that apart from the
       Oman International Bank SAOD, one Shiraj Taher Ali Lokhandwala has
       also obtained a.money decree against the respondents due to which several B
       problems have arisen in executing the decree and realizing the amount. In
       the present proceedings we are basically concerned with the violation or
       breach of the undertaking given hy the respondents. Shri C.A. Sundaram,
       learned senior counsel, has submitted that the Respondent No. 2 was not
       personally present and the undertaking was given by him through a power C
     . of attorney. In our opinion, the mere fact that the respondent No. 2 was
       personally not present and the undertaking and the consent terms were
       given through a power of attorney will make no difference as he also got
       benefit under the consent decree passed by this Court.

           16. Coming to the question of sentence, we are conscious of the fact D


.,   that the power to punish for contempt must always be exercised con-
     sciously, wisely and with circumspection. At the same time, the Court
     should act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardized by
     a grossly contemptuous act of a party. It the judiciary is to perform its
     duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are E
     sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the Courts hav_e to be
     respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very cornerstone of our
     constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of
     law and the civilized life in the society [See In re Vinay Chandra Misra,
     [1995] 2 SCC 584]. The present petition was heard on 27.8.2003 when we
     enquired whether the respondents would be willing to deposit the amount. f
     Learned counsel for the respondents sought time and the case was
     adjourned to 23.9.2003 and then to 14.10.2003 and finally to 28.10.2003.
     However, even on the said date, learned counsel for the respondents
     reiterated the p~oblems of the respondents in depositing the amount and
     so the matter was heard on merits. The position remains that though under G
     the consent decree passed by this Court on 28.7.1999, the respondents had
     to deposit the first instalment on or before 1.11.1999 and the last instalment
     by 1.8.2001, but they have not deposited or paid even a single penny. In
     these circumstances. we are of the opinion that there is no occasion for
      showing any leniency in the matter of punishment.                          H
    780                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A         17. We accordingly hold that the respondents have committed
    contempt of Court for which they are sentenced to undergo four months
    imprisonment. It is, however, directed that after they have undergone 15
    days imprisonment, they shall be released on short term bail for a period
    of three months on their furnishing bail bonds, etc., to the satisfaction of
B the Registrar, Bom~ay High Court. If during this period of three months,
  . they deposit the entire amount in terms of the consent decree dated
    28.7.1999, the sentence of four months imprisonment imposed upon them
    shall be reduced to the period already undergone, failing which they will
    undergo the balance period of imprisonment.

C B.S.                                                        Petition allowed.