Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 1141 - HC - Indian LawsAction for contempt - compromise decree entered - partition proceedings among HUF - Held that - No doubt, Rajiv Gupta, respondent No. 1, had filed a suit for partition against L.R. Gupta (his father) in the capacity of HUF, his mother and his brother, Sanjay Gupta, which was compromised on 9.1.2006 in terms of which, a compromise decree has been passed. Even if it is assumed that in terms of the compromise, the respondent herein has been able to obtain title to two properties situated in Vasant Vihar and has now tried to retrace his steps so as to wriggle out of the compromise after having obtained an advantage, it does not in my view result in any wilful disobedience of the order passed by the court. In the language of court which passed the order on 9.1.2006, there is no direction, order or judgment passed by the court. All that it is noted in the order is that this is a suit which has been settled in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Thus, in my view, prima facie there is no undertaking given to the court. The petitioner in his petition has already observed that he has already applied for execution of the decree. Having chosen to file an execution petition for getting the decree executed, it is not open, in my view, for the petitioner to file the present contempt petition or in other words, it can be assumed that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner only with a view to bring to bear pressure on the respondents to succumbs to the settlement in terms of the compromise, which cannot be permitted to be done at the instance of one of the parties. The purpose of the contempt proceedings is not to satisfy the whims and fancies of one party nor compel the other party to submit to the dictates of the party, who has filed the contempt petition. The present contempt petition is totally misconceived.
Issues Involved: Contempt of court, compliance with compromise decree, execution of decree, wilful disobedience, undertaking to the court, alternative remedies, limitation period.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Contempt of Court and Compliance with Compromise Decree: The petitioner filed a contempt petition against the respondents alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 9.1.2006. The background of the case involves a suit for partition, rendition of accounts, and injunction filed by respondent No. 1, which was settled through a compromise. The compromise entailed the petitioner transferring properties and sums of money to the respondents. The petitioner alleged that despite the compromise, the respondents continued to claim rights over other properties and positions in companies, thereby disobeying the court's order. 2. Execution of Decree: The petitioner argued that the respondents' actions amounted to wilful disobedience of the court's order and sought contempt proceedings. However, the court noted that the petitioner had already filed an execution petition for the decree, which was pending. The court emphasized that the execution of the decree should be pursued through normal legal processes rather than contempt proceedings. 3. Wilful Disobedience and Undertaking to the Court: The court examined whether the respondents' actions constituted wilful disobedience. It found that the language of the order dated 9.1.2006 did not contain any specific direction or judgment requiring compliance. The order merely recorded the settlement terms without any explicit undertaking by the respondents to the court. The court held that contempt proceedings require a clear undertaking to the court, which was absent in this case. 4. Alternative Remedies and Limitation Period: The respondents contested the maintainability of the contempt petition on the grounds of limitation and the availability of alternative remedies, such as arbitration and execution of the decree. The court agreed, noting that the petitioner had already sought execution of the decree and that the contempt petition appeared to be an attempt to exert pressure on the respondents. 5. Judgments Relied Upon by Petitioner: The petitioner relied on several judgments to support the contempt petition. However, the court distinguished these cases, particularly noting that in the cited case of Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang & Anr., there were specific undertakings given to the court, which was not the situation in the present case. The court also found that other judgments cited by the petitioner did not support the contempt petition in the absence of a clear undertaking. Conclusion: The court concluded that the contempt petition was misconceived as there was no clear undertaking by the respondents to the court, and the petitioner had already sought execution of the decree through normal legal processes. The court dismissed the contempt petition and discharged the contempt notice, allowing the petitioner to pursue appropriate action for the execution of the decree if not already taken.
|