1996 (9) TMI 641 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises.
2. Alleged willful disobedience of the Supreme Court's order.
3. Alleged false statements and affidavits constituting criminal contempt.

Summary:

1. Failure to Hand Over Vacant Possession:
The respondent failed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises by March 31, 1995, as mandated by the Supreme Court's order dated October 5, 1994. The petitioner, daughter of the deceased Prakash Lal Sharma, filed an execution application before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. The respondent contested the execution by asserting he occupied more than the suit premises, raising contentious issues of fact and law.

2. Alleged Willful Disobedience:
The petitioner contended that the respondent's failure to file an undertaking and subsequent contesting of the execution application amounted to willful disobedience of the Supreme Court's order. The respondent argued that since he had not filed any undertaking, he could not be held liable for contempt for not vacating the premises. The Supreme Court found that the respondent did not comply with the order and made false statements in his affidavits, but he could not be held liable for contempt for breach of the order as it was based on an agreement between the parties, not on the respondent's representation.

3. Alleged False Statements and Affidavits:
The respondent falsely claimed in affidavits that he had handed over vacant possession of the suit premises on October 14, 1995. The Rent Controller's report confirmed that possession was only given on March 7, 1996. The Supreme Court held that by filing false affidavits, the respondent committed criminal contempt by obstructing the administration of justice. The Court referenced the judgment in Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, emphasizing that filing false affidavits in judicial proceedings amounts to criminal contempt.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of criminal contempt for filing false affidavits. Although the respondent offered an unconditional apology, the Court did not find it genuine. Considering the respondent's custody period and the eventual handover of possession, the Court imposed a fine of Rs. 2000, in default of which the respondent would suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The fine, if realized, would be paid to the petitioner as compensation. The Court also decided not to pursue the forfeiture of bonds executed by the respondent and his surety and dropped the case for perjury in view of the imposed punishment in the contempt case.