9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Contempt of court for breach of personal undertaking given in a second appeal. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a rule issued against the opposite party for potential contempt of court due to breaching a personal undertaking given in a second appeal. The appeal was disposed of based on a joint compromise petition filed by the parties, wherein the appellant undertook to provide vacant possession of the premises by a specified date. However, the respondent alleged non-compliance and sought the opposite party's commitment to prison. The opposite party claimed to have sub-let a portion of the premises before the suit, which was not disclosed earlier. The court found the opposite party guilty of deliberate breach, emphasizing that breaching a court undertaking is contemptuous conduct. The court distinguished this case from a prior judgment where the undertaking had conditions, stating that the current undertaking was unconditional. The court rejected the argument that since the undertaking was not recorded in the court order, it did not amount to contempt, emphasizing that the court relied on the undertaking in disposing of the appeal. Furthermore, the court dismissed the request for an adjournment to allow compliance with the undertaking, as the opposite party had sufficient time to fulfill the commitment. Consequently, the opposite party was convicted of contempt and sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment along with a fine. The court ordered the issuance of a writ of arrest and directed the petitioner to bear the expenses related to the writ and conveying the prisoner to jail. The second judge in agreement with the decision, concluded the judgment.
|
