Supreme Court of India
M/S SITARAM ENTERPRISESversusPRITHVIRAJ VARDICHAND JAIN
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 685
- Decided
- 9 September 2024
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the respondent deliberately and willfully failed to comply with its order dated 06‑06‑2023 and is guilty of contempt of court.
Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the respondent's Special Leave Petitions and granted the landlord nine months to obtain vacant possession of the premises, subject to an undertaking. The respondent failed to file the undertaking on time, filed multiple review and extension applications, and deliberately avoided personal appearance despite bailable and non‑bailable warrants. The Court found that the respondent's conduct was a deliberate and willful disobedience of its order dated 06‑06‑2023, constituting contempt of court. While acknowledging the respondent's advanced age and health, the Court granted only a week to surrender possession, directing forceful possession if he failed to comply. The contempt petitions were therefore disposed of, with the respondent ordered to vacate within seven days and to bear the costs of execution.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent's failure to vacate the premises despite the Supreme Court's order amounts to contempt of court.
- Whether the respondent's conduct constitutes deliberate and willful disobedience of a judicial direction.
- Whether any leniency or additional time should be granted on account of the respondent's age and health.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Article 129 of the Constitution of IndiaContempt of CourtContempt powersEvictionLandlordTenantContemnorDeliberate, Willful non-compliance of the directions of CourtWillful disobedienceContemptuous conductUndertaking/affidavitPersonal appearanceBailable/non-bailable warrant
Judgment
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 414 : 2024 INSC 685
M/s Sitaram Enterprises
v.
Prithviraj Vardichand Jain
(Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 196-197 of 2024)
In
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12081-12082 of 2023)
09 September 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Eviction decree was passed against the respondent-tenant
(contemnor). Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by him
vide order dtd. 06.06.2023 and he was granted nine months
time expiring on 06.03.2024 to vacate the suit premises subject
to filing of undertaking/affidavit. Undertaking/affidavit was filed
belatedly and the contemnor continued to litigate filing Review
Petitions and applications seeking extension of time which were
dismissed. He deliberately did not appear in the Court despite
specific directions issued for personal appearance or on service of
bailable/non-bailable warrant. Fresh non-bailable warrants issued,
contemnor was produced in the court. Possession of the suit
premises not delivered to the landlord in compliance with the order
dtd. 06.06.2023. Whether the contemnor deliberately and willfully
did not comply with the order of this Court dated 06.06.2023 and
thus, guilty of the contempt of Court.
Headnotes†
Contempt of Court – Contemnor, if guilty of deliberate and
willful non-compliance of the directions of this Court dated
06.06.2023 to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises
to the landlord:
Held: Yes – Contemnor was unable to explain his conduct – He
also sought a month’s time to vacate the suit premises – After
dismissal of the SLP, Review Petitions and applications for extension
of time to vacate the suit premises, said prayer is 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 –
Contemnor deliberately and willfully did not comply with the order
of this Court dated 06.06.2023 and flouted the same and thus,
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 415
M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain
guilty for non-compliance of the directions of this Court – However,
contemnor being an old aged person, in the interest of justice
a week’s time granted to hand over the vacant and peaceful
possession of the suit premises to the landlord, otherwise the order
dated 06.06.2023 be complied with by taking forceful possession
from him – Further directions issued. [Paras 13-15, 17]
Constitution of India – Article 129 – Contempt powers:
Held: Power to punish for Contempt of Court’s order is vital to
safeguard the authority and efficiency of the judicial system –
Contempt powers are integral to maintaining the sanctity of
judicial proceedings-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 – 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. [Para 2]
List of Acts
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Article 129 of the Constitution of India; Contempt of Court; Contempt
powers; Eviction; Landlord; Tenant; Contemnor; Deliberate, Willful
non-compliance of the directions of Court; Willful disobedience;
Contemptuous conduct; Undertaking/affidavit Personal appearance;
Bailable/non-bailable warrant.
Case Arising From
INHERENT JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 196-197
of 2024
In
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12081-12082 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2023 of the Supreme
Court of India, Delhi in SLP (C) No. 12081-12082 of 2023
With
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 198-199 of 2024 in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Nos. 12083-12084 of 2023
416 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Advs. for
the Petitioner.
Nityanand Singh, Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Ms. Radhika Goel, V. V.
Manoharam, Ms. Joohi, Saurabh Upadhyay, Prakash Kumar Singh,
Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 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. 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 Court to punish for contempt is a cornerstone of its
authority, integral to the administration of justice and the maintenance
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 417
M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain
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 suits1 before the Court of Small Causes at Bombay
(Bandra Branch) 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 Revisions,4 which were dismissed vide
order dated 12.10.2022. It appears that the intention of the
1 R.A.E. & R. Suit Nos.43/137 & 111/300 of 2003
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
418 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
respondent/tenant was to prolong the litigation, he filed review
petitions,5 which were also 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 Petitions6 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 Petitions7 which were 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
5 Review Petition Nos.9 and 10 of 2022
6 Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12081-12082 of 2023
7 Review Petitions arising out of R.P. Diary No.26984 of 2023
8 Dated 04.03.2024
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 419
M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain
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 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 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.
420 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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, 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 message 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
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 421
M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain
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 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, 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
422 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 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, 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
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 423
M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain
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.
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.
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.
424 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
18.2 In case of failure, within next seven days on a warrant of
possession issued by the 68th 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
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.
Result of the Case: Contempt Petitions disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 129 of the Constitution of India"Sign in to search