PATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI & ANR. v. PATEL CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI & ORS

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 1169

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: C.K. THAKKER, AFTAB ALAM

Case summary

PATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI & ANR. v. PATEL CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 10 S. C. R. 1169 PATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI & ANR. v. PATEL CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI & ORS (CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 12-13 OF 2006. IN SLP (C) Nos. 7659-7660 of 2004) JULY 21, 2008 [C. K. THAKKER AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ. ] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 12- Contempt of court - Violation of orders passed by Supreme Court - Contempt petitions - Held: Wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by the apex Court can never be said to be bona fide, honest or in good faith - It calls for serious view to ensure proper administration of justice - On facts, there was inten- ~ tional and deliberate violation and disobedience of the orders 0 dated 26. 04. 06 and 10. 01. 05 -Apology tendered by contemners not an act ofpenitence, contrition or regret - Acceptance ofsuch apology would be allowing contemners to go away with impunity after committing gross contempt of court - Contemners held guilty uls. 12 of the Act, r/w s. 94(c}, 0 39 r.

2-A CPC and Article 129 and awarded simple imprisonment for two weeks - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 94(c}, 0 39, r 2-A (as amended by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 129. _. , The dispute in the instant SLPs pertains to the transfer of and construction on certain properties claimed to be joint family properties. By this Court's order dated 26. 04. 04 the interim relief restraining the defendants from putting up any construction on suit land as also transferring the same, granted by the High Court was allowed to be continued. Subsequently, by order dated 10. 01. 05, ,,, SLPs were disposed of holding that any construction by purchasers on ·suit properties would be subject to outcome of suit; that any third party right that may be cre- ated, should be done after notice to petitioners; and that the pendency of proceedings should be notified to third parties.

However, respondents allegedly sold the property, received consideration and executed sale deeds without notice, acting in violation of this Court's order dated 26. 4. 2004 and 10. 1. 2005. Hence the present con- ,. tempt petitions. Disposing of the contempt petitions, the Court HELD: 1. From the overall considerations of the matter and viewed in the light of series of events, the respondents-contemners have disregarded and violated the orders passed by this Court on 26. 04. 04 and 10. 01. 05 and the contemners are responsible for such act. Considering the facts and circumstances in their entirety, ends of justice would be served if the respondents/contemners 0 are held guilty u/s. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, + r/w s. 94(c) and Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article 129 of the Constitution.

The respondents-contemners are ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two weeks. [Paras 44, 45 and 69] [1191-E-F 1200 E-Fl 2. 1 With regard to the defence that Development Scheme was jointly promoted for part 'A' land and part 'B' land, is clearly an after thought and the plea has befm put forward without there being anything on record. Though "' it was stated that initially, M, H, Rand RG were given shops in part 'B' property, no such agreements/deeds have been placed on record. It was then stated that after interim stay was vacated and request was made by them to allot them shops in part 'A' property, no evidence/material has been addu~ed by the contemners. Stereo-type affidavits have been filed sworn on one and the same day, July 29, 2006 . ,_ after contempt notice was served upon the respondents. Even the sale-deeds do not recite part 'A' or 'B' of the prop- J CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI & ORS.

erty or the fact that earlier the allottee was granted shop in part '8' property but after the disposal of the SLPs, request was made by the purchaser to convert the allotment from part 'B' property to part 'A' property. Therefore, the so-called defence is apparently to avoid conse- .... quences of contempt proceedings. Moreover, the defence does not appear to be probable. Normally, no reasonable and prudent man/woman who purchases immovable property with a 'clear' title would request the owner of the property to allot him/her property over which his title is not clear, which is the subject-matter of litigation, for which a suit is pending and the matter is sub-judice in a Court of law. [Paras 36 and 37] [1188 E 1189 C] 2. 2 There was no question of raising a plea that the acceptance of cheques during the pendency of the interim orders represented the amount of consideration booked prior to the issuance of interim orders.

If initial booking and payment was in relation to part 'B' property, it was immaterial and altogether irrelevant whether it was prior or subsequent to filing suit by the plaintiffs or grant of interim orders either by High Court or by this Court. Thus, the pleas are inconsistent, conflicting and irreconcilable. [Para 38] [1189 F-G] 2. 3 During the pendency of the proceedings and inspite of interim orders passed by this Court, agreements .. have been entered into by the contemners, cheques had been accepted and consideration had been received at least in part. So far as the first order passed by this Court on 26. 04. 04 is concerned, there was total prohibition from creating any interest in favour of third party either by sale, mortgage, transfer, assignment, gift or 'in any other manner whatsoever'. Hence, entering into an agreement or acceptance of full or even part consideration would be hit by the said order.

It would amount to 'creation of interest' the order of this Court, dated 10. 01. 05 so far as 'notice' to the petitioners is concerned. It is not disputed even by the contemners that in some cases, notice as to creation ofthird party interest had been given after creation of such r interest by filing pursis in the Court. [Para 42] [1191 B-C] ~ 2. 7 The submission that this Court had not ordered that 'prior' notice should be given to the petitioners re- ... garding creation of third party rights and hence, there was " no violation of the direction of the Court cannot be ac- '" cepted. This Court has stated; "Any third party right which ( )\ -: CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI & ORS. is created shall be done after notice to the petitioners. The direction has only one meaning and it is that third party interest can only be created after notice to the petitioners. Admittedly, that was not done, at least, in few cases. [Paras 43 and 44] [1191 C-E] 3.

1 It is clear that punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. [Para 59] [1197 E-G] Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Ors. 2003 (11) SCC 1; Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State ofBihar and Ors. 1999 (7) SCC 569; Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors. 2002 (4) SCC 21; Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah 2007 (7) SCC 689; All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh and Ors. 2007 (11) SCC 374; Tayabbhai M. Bagasarawala v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd.

1997 (3) SCC 443-referred to. Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd. 1974 AC 273 ~ - referred to. 3. 2 In the instant case, both the orders passed by this Court on April 26, 2004 and January 10, 2005, were explicitly clear. The first order totally prohibited/restrained the respondents/contemners from creating any interest whatsoever in the suit property. lnspite of the said order, interest had been created by the contemners in the suit property. But even otherwise there is intentional disobedience and wilful breach of the subsequent order dated January 10, 2005 inasmuch as transactions had been entered into without issuing notice to the petitioners. They could not have been entered int~ by the respondents b~ fore issuance of notice to the petitioners. The respondents were clearly aware of the order.

In fact, the action was sought to be defended and justified on the ground that the Court had not directed 'prior' notice, and as such, non-is- 8 suance of notice before entering into sale transactions would not amount to disobedience of the order of the Court cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, it must be held that the disobedience of the order by the contemners was wilful, intentional and deliberate. [Para 60] [1197 G -1198-C] 4. 1 The suomission that in the affidavit in reply, the respondents have stated that if this Court comes to the conclusion that they had committe~ contempt of Court, the Court may accept unconditional and unqualified apology and may discharge notice; and that the statutory pro- . D vision itself enacts that no,apology shall be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional [Explanation to s. 12(1)] cannot be accepted. The contemhers have intentionally and deliberately violated the orders of the Court.

The orders were clear, unambiguous and unequivocal having one and only one meaning. Wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by the apex Court of. the country can never be said to be bona fide, honest or in good faith. If it is so, the action calls for serious view to ensure proper administration of justice. [Paras 61 and 62] [1198 D-G] 4. 2 An apolegy is neither a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, 'it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness [Para 64] [1199 D] 4. 3 In the in~tant case, the so-called apology is not an act of penitence, contrition or regret. It has been tendered as a 'tactful move' when the contemners are in the tight corner and with a view to ward off the Court. Acceptance of such apology in the case. on hand wou-ld be al- . CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI & ORS. '( lowing the contemners to go away with impunity after committing gross contempt of Court.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, imposition of fine in lieu of imprisonment would not meet the ends of justice. [Para 68) [1200 C-E] --; M. Y Shareaf v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur 1955 (1) SCR 757; M. B. Sanghi v. Hil]h Court of Punjab and Haryana 1991 (3) SCR 312 - relied on. Hiren Bose, Re AIR 1969 Cal 1; T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad through the Amicus Curiae v. Ashok Khot and Anr. 2006 (5) SCC 1 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2003 (11) sec 1 Referred to. Para 50 1999 (7) sec 569 Referred to. Para 51 1973 (3) All ER 54 Referred to. Para 52 2002 (4) sec 21 Referred to. Para 53 2001 (7) sec 689 Referred to. Para 54 2001 (11) sec 374 Referred to. Para 55 1997 (3) sec 443 Referred to. Para 56 AIR 1969 Cal 1 Referred to. Para 63 1955 (1) SCR 757 Relied on. Para 64 1991 (3) SCR 312 Relied on. Para 64 2006 (5) sec 1 Refer. red to. Para 65 1984 (3) sec 405 Referred to. Para 65 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (C) Nos.

12-13 of 2006 in SLP (C) 7659-7660 of 2004 .. Shyam Divan, Jay Savla, Reena Bagga and Akshit Gadnrik for the Contemners/Applicants. Uday Lalit, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Sanjay Kapur, Shubhra Kapur, Rajiv Kapur and Arti Singh for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. K. THAKKER, J. 1. The present contempt petitions are . ,.. filed by the petitioners against respondent Nos. 1 to 3, alleged contemners, praying that they be held guilty of 'civil contempt' for violating orders passed by this Court on April 26, 2004 and on January 10, 2005 and be punished accordingly. A prayer is also made directing the contemners to deposit the amount received from third parties in consideration of transfer of property effected by them during the period of interim orders of this Court. 2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 (in Special Leave Petitions) are real brothers and heirs and legal representatives of one Dhulabhai Patel.

It was the case of the petitioners that in 1961, one Chandulal Muljibhai Parikh and Dhulabhai Patel (father of " petitioners and respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5) purchased land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 459/2, 464, 465, 466/1 and 466/ 2 admeasuring 6 acres and 9 gunthas ofvillageAtladara, Taluka and District Baroda in the State of Gujarat from one Parvatibai Ingle by a registered sale deed. According to the petitioners, the amount of consideration was paid from the funds of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of Dhulbhai Patel, but name of respondent No. 1 Chandrakant Dhulabhai Patel was shown as the purchaser of the property being the eldest son of decdeased Dhulabhai Patel along with Chandulal Muljibhai Parikh. Respon- A. dent Nos. 4 and 5 were minors at that time. Respondent No. 1, Chandrakant Dhulabhai Patel was also studying in a college and was having no source of income whatsoever. The entire amount was paid by deceased Dhulabhai.

According to the petitioners, several documents revealed that the property was managed by HUF of Dhulabhai Patel. In October, 1986, Dhulabhai died. No partition by metes and bounds had been .... _ effected between the sons of deceased Dhulabhai and the property continued to remain as HUF property. The petitioners used to manage prope~y after the death of Dhulabhai. "I' 3. In 1990, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into between respondent No. 1, Chandrakant Patel, being eldest son of Dhulabhai Patel family on one hand and heirs of deceased Chandulal Parikh on the other hand where- .... under it was agreed that a portion of land towards western side " 34. In affidavit-in-rejoinder, the petitioners have stated that after examining oral and documentary evidence, the competent Court passed a decree in favour of plaintiffs declaring shares of plaintiffs and defendants. Meanwhile, however, the y respondents disposed of several properties.

It was reiterated that illegally and with mala fide intention, the respondents ereated third party interest in gross defiance of interim orders and by making inconsistent and contradictory statements. A false Istatement was made by respondents in sale deeds and in agree- .. _ [ ments to sell that the title of the respondents over the property was 'clear and marketable'. As to properties part 'A; and 'B', it was stated that the contention was wholly irrelevant inasmuch as the trial Court decreed the suit by holding the plaintiffs as joint owners of the property. 35. Further affidavit was thereafter filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on February 25, 2008 on the question of title deeds. It was stated that in sale deeds, a statement was made that "third party has no right, title, interest or claim and the property (subject-matter of sale deed) was not under attachment". But it was also stated that the suit was pending and the sale-deeds were .

,, executed subject to final decision in the suit. Thus, the respondents had acted bona fide. They have not only notified in the sale-deeds the pendency of civil suit but also have gone a step further and stated that the sale-deeds were being executed subject to final decision in the pending suit. It was, therefore, submitted that the Contempt Petitions should be dismissed. 36. From the facts stated above, it is proved that there is breach of interim orders passed by this Court. So far as the ! __ defence as to properties falling in parts 'A' and 'B' is concerned, ... in our opinion, it is clearly an after thought and the plea has been put forward without there being anything on record. Though it was stated that initially, Madhuben, Hemlataben, Rashmikaben and Ranjit Gulati were given shops in part 'B' property, no such agreements/deeds have been placed on record.

It was then stated that after interim relief was vacated and request w~s made by them to allot them shops in part 'A' property, no evi- '<. dence/material has been adduced by the contemners. A stereo-type affidavits have been filed sworn on one and the same day, July 29, 2006 after contempt notice was served upon the ) respondents. Even the sale-deeds do not recit~ part 'A' or 'B' .. ,.. of the property or the fact that earlier the allottee was granted shop in part 'B' property but after the disposal of the Special Leave Petitions, request was made by the purchaser to convert the allotment from part 'B' property to part 'A' property. The socalled defence, therefore, is apparently to avoid consequences of contempt proceedings. 37. Moreover, the defence does not appear to be probable.

Normally, no reasonable and prudent man/woman who purchases immovable property with a 'clear' title would request the owner of the property to allot him/her property over which his title is not clear, which is the subject-matter of litigation, for which a suit is pending and the matter is sub-Judice in a Court of law. 38. Further, the pleas advanced by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are inconsistent, conflicting and irreconcilable. On the one I hand, it was asserted that during the operation of the interim order, dated April 26, 2004, respondent Nos.

2 and 3 had not created third party interest in the suit property and the cheques said to have been accepted by them during the pendency of proceedings 'represented the amount paid towards consideration of the apartment booked prior to the issuance of the interim orders,' while on the other hand, it was stated that initial booking was for shops to be constructed on part 'B' property, but subsequently, after dismissal of Special Leave Petitions, at the request of purchasers, allotment was converted from part 'B' property to part 'A' property. If it were so, there was no question of raising a plea that the acceptance of cheques during the pendency of the interirr orders represented the amount of consideration booked prior to the issuance of interim orders.

If initial booking and payment was in relation to part 'B' property, it was immaterial and altogether irrelevant whether it was prior or subsequent to filing suit by the plaintiffs or grant of interim orders either by the High Court or by this Court. ~ 39. We are, therefore, fully convinced that during the pendency of the proceedings and in spite of interim orders passed " by this Court, agreements have been entered into by the contemners, cheques had been accepted and consideration had been received at least in part. So far as the first order passed by this Court on April 26, 2004 is concerned, there was total prohibition from creating any interest in favour of third party either by sale, mortgage, transfer, assignment, gift or'in any other manner whatsoever'. Hence, entering into an agreement or acceptance of full or even part consideration would be hit by the said order. In our considered view, it would amount to 'creation of interest' prohibited by this Court. 40.

The matter did not end there. Special Leave Petitions were filed in this Court by the petitioners against an interim order not granting injunction below Application, Ex. 5. Though the High Court granted such injunction, but it was vacated at the time of dismissal ofAppeal from Order. But all the parties to the suit were aware that the main matter (suit) was pending and rights of contesting parties in the suit-property were yet to be decided. In the circumstances, 'injunction' or 'no injunction', the title of the defendants was 'under challenge'. It was 'cloudy' and unless and until the suit is decided, it cannot be said that they had 'clear and marketable title'. Though the legal position is clear and beyond controversy, we find that an express, unambiguous and unequivocal statement is made by the contemners in all sale deeds that their title to the property is 'clear and marketable'.

It was also stated that they were independent owners, possessors and occupiers of the property and there was no right, interest, part share, claim of anybody else therein. 41. It was, no doubt, submitted by the learned counsel for the contemners that it was specifically and clearly stated that a suit was pending in the Court of Ciyil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara and it was also clarified that the documents were executed subject to the final decision in the suit. It was further submitted that if the owner of the property does not state that he has title over the property he seeks to transfer and that such title is 'clear and marketable', no reasonable and prudent man would come forward to purchase such property. To this extent, the PATELHAJNIKANT DHULABHAI &ANR. v. PATEL 1191 learned counsel is right.

That, however, does not mean that in such case, a person whose title is challenged and the proceedings are pending will be permitted to say that his title is 'clear 1 and marketable' and there is no impediment on the contemners from transferring the property in favour of pur. chasers. 1 42. Finally, in any case, there is clear breach and violation of the order of this Court, i. e. order, dated January 10, 2005 so far as 'notice' to the petitioners is concerned. It is not disputed even by the contemners that in some cases, notice as to ere- 1 ation of third party interest had been given after creation of such interest by filing pursis in the Court. 43. The learned counsel for the contemners half-heartedly ' submitted that this Court had not ordered that 'prior' notice should be given to the petitioners regarding creation of third party rights and hence, there was no violation of the direction of the Court. " 44. We are unable to agree with the submission.

This Court has stated; "Any third party right which is created shall be done after notice to the petitioners. " In our view, the direction has only one meaning and it is that third party interest can only be created after notice to the petitioners. Admittedly, that was not 1 done, at least, in few cases. It is, therefore, clear that there is violation and disobedience of the orders of the Court and the contemners are responsible for such act. 45. From the overall considerations of the matter in the light of series of events, we hold that the respondents-contemners have disregarded and violated the orders passed by this , Court on April 26, 2004 and January 10, 2005. 46. The next question is whether for disobedience of the order passed by this Court, the respondents/contemners are 1 liable to punishment? In this connection, we may refer to some of the legal provisions.

Article 129 of the Constitution declares this Court (Supreme Court) to be "a Court of Record having all, the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for the contempt of itself'. Clause (c) of Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enacts that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may, commit the person guilty of disobedience of an order of interim injunction to civil prison and direct his property be attached and sold. Rule 2A of Order XXXI? < as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976) reads thus: 2A.

Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction-(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to-the injured party and shall pay the balanQe, if any, to the party entitled thereto. 47.

The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have also been invoked. Section 2 of the Act is a definition • clause. Clause (a) enacts that contempt of court means 'civil contempt or criminal contempt'. Clause (b) defines 'civil contempt' thus; (b) 'civil contempt' means wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 48. Reading of the above clause makes it clear that the following conditions must . be satisfied before a person can be ....

held to have committed a civil contempt; (i) there must be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court (or an undertaking given to a Court); (ii) there must be disobedience to such judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court (or breach of undertaking given to a Court); and (iii) such disobedience of judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court (or breach of undertaking) must be wilful. 49. Section 12 provides punishment for contempt of Court. The relevant part of the provision reads thus; S. 12 - Punishment for contempt of court-(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.

Explanation. -An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the " -time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in - excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any Contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court , if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice y . and that a sentence of imprisonment is ·necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct ' that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. 'I 50. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha & Ors. , (2003) 11 SCC 1, this Court had an occasion to consider the concept of 'wilful disobedience' of an order of the Court.

It was stated that 'wilful' means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. According to the Court, it signifies the act done with evil intent or with a bad motive for the purpose. It was observed that the act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 51. ·In Kapi/deo Prasad Sah & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , (1999) 7 SCC 569, it was held that for holding a person to have committed contempt, it must be shown that there was wil- ,; ful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. But it was indicated that even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt.

It was further observed that issuance of notice for contempt of Court and power to punish are having far reaching consequences, and as such, they should be resorted ;d to only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order is made out. A petitioner who complains breach of Court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court's order and if such allegation is proved, contempt can be said to have been made out, not otherwise. The Court noted that power to punish for contempt is intended to maintain effec- Lve legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the cours· ofjustice. ·52. In the celebrated decision of Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd. ; 1974 AC 273: (1973) 3 All ER 54: (1973) 3 l/VLR 298; Lord Diplock stated: I •' \ I '( 'There is an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt, since the administration of justice would be1 undermined if the order of any court of law could be disregarded with impunity. " 53.

In Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors. , • (2002) 4 SCC 21, this Court held that the Contempt of Courts 1 _, Act has been introduced in the statute-book for securing confi-' dence of people in the administration of justice. If an . order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court. There1 can be no laxity in such a situation because otherwise the Court' orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible defence. It was observed that power to punish a ) person for contempt is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in thet .. /, '· hands of Judiciary but that by itself operates as a string of caution and cannot be used unless the Court is satisfied beyond doubt that the person has deliberately and intentionally violated the order of the Court.

The power under the Act must be exercised with utmost care and caution and sparingly in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of justice delivery system. Mere disobedience of an order is not enough to hold a person guilty of civil contempt. The element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. 54. In Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689, one of us (C. K. Thakker, J. ) observed that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ! ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy avail'- ..... able to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate pro- ' ceedings known to law.

But it cannot be made ineffective by nqt complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such ' y directions could have been issued by the Court. Upholding of such argument would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. 55. In All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh & Ors. , (2007) ·11 SCC 374, this Court 8 considered several cases and observed that wilful and deliberate act of violation of interim order passed by a competent Court would amount to contempt of Court. • 56. A reference in this connection may also be made to a decision of this Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarawala v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) L(d. , (1997) 3 SCC 443. In that case. , the ,,. plaintiff-landlord filed a suit against the defendant-tenant in the \ c·ity Civil Court for. permanent injunction restraining the defendant from carry. ing on construction in the suit premises. Ad in- ') terim injunctio. n was grC:tnted by the Court.

Defendant's application for vacating injunction was dismissed. The defendant, however, committed breact) of injunction. The plaintiff, hence, filed an application unde. r Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Code. The defendant came forward-and raised an. objection as to jurisdiction of the Court and power to grant injunction. The High Co~rt. ultimately, upheid the objection and ruled that City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit l_t was, therefore, argued by the defendant that he cannot be. punished for disobedience. of an order passed by a Court whic~ had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or to gra'nt injunction. Tile High Court upheld the contention. The plaintiff approached this Court. 57. This Court observed that until the question of jurisdiction had been decided, the City Civil Court possessed power to make interim orders. The Court could also enforce them. A subsequent decision that the Co.

urt had no jurisdiction tq entertain the sui~ did not render interim ord~rs passed earlier non est or without jurisdiction. A party committing breach . of such orders could not escape the consequences of such disobedience and violation thereof. Accordingly, the Court held the defendant gyilty for intentionally and delibe. rately violating interim order and convicted him under Rule 2-A of Order XXXIX of the Code and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment. _58. Speaking for the Court, Jeevan Reddy, i stated; "Can· it be said that orders passed by the Civil Court and the High Court during this period of six years were all non est and that it is open to the defendants to flout them merrily, without fear of any consequence. The question is , whether the said decision of the High Court means that no person can be punished for flouting or disobeying the interim/ interlocutory orders while they were in force, i. e.

, for violations and disobedience committed prior to the decision of the High Court on the question of jurisdiction. 1 Holding that by virtue of the said decision of the High Court (on the question of jurisdiction), no one can be punished thereafter for disobedience or violation of the 0 interim orders committed prior to the said decision of the High Court, would indeed be subversive of the Rule of Law and would seriously erode the dignity and the authority of the courts. (emphasis supplied) 59. From the above decisions, it is clear that punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step.

If for proper administration ofjustice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. 60. Now, in the instant case, both the orders passed by this Court on April 26, 2004 and January 10, 2005, were explicitly clear. The first order totally prohibited/restrained the respon~ dents/contemners from creating any interest whatsoeve·r in the suit property. As held by us, in spite of the said order, interest had been created by the contemners in the suit property. But even otherwise there is intentional disobedience and wilful breach of the subsequent order dated January 10, 2005 inasmuch as transactions had been entered into without issuing notice to the petitioners. We have already held that they could / s not have been entered into by the respondents before issuance of notice to the petitioners. The respondents were clearly aware of the order.

In fact, the action was sought to be defended and justified on the ground that the Court had ·not directed 'prior' notice, and as such, non-issuance of notice before entering into sale transactions would not amount to disobedience of the order of the Court. We are unable to uphold the contention. In the circumstances it must be held that the disobedience of the order by the contemners was wilful, intentional and deliberate. 61. The question then is whether the case calls for imposition of punishment on the contemners. The learned counsel for the contemners submitted that in the affidavit in reply, the respondents have stated that if this Court comes to the conclusion that they had committed contempt of Court, the Court may accept unconditional and unqualified apology and may discharge notice. The counsel submitted that the statutory provision itself enacts that noapology shall be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional [Explanation to Section. 12(1 )]. '".

92.. We must frankly admit our inability to agree·with the learned counsel. In the light of what is stated above, we are convinced that the contemners have intentionally and deliberately violated the orders of the Court. We are also convinced that the orders were clear, unambiguous and unequivocal having one and only one meaning. Wilful and deliberate disobedi- . ' ence of the orders passed by the apex Court of the country can never be said to be bona fide, honest or in good faith. If it is so, the action calls for serious view to ensure proper administration of justice. 63. In Hiren Bose, Re, AIR 1969 Cal 1 : 72 Cal WN 82, the High Court of Calcutta stated; "It is also not a matter of course that a J. udge can be expected to accept any apology. Apology cannot be a weapon of defence forged always to purge the guilty.

It is intended to be evidence of real contrition, the manly consciousness of a wrong done, of an injury inflicted and ~ the earnest desire to make such reparation as lies in the wrong-doer's power. Only then is it of any avail in a Court of justice But before it can have that effect, it should be tendered at the earliest possible stage, not the latest. Even if wisdom dawns only at a later stage, the apology should be tendered unreservedly and unconditionally, before the Judge has indicated the trend of his mind. Unless that is done, not only is the tendered apology robbed of all grace but it ceases to be an apology It ceases to be the full, frank and manly confession of a wrong done, which it is intended to be". " 64. It is well-settled that an apology is neither a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness [Vide M. Y Shareaf v.

Hon'bfe Judges of the High Court of Nagpur; (1955) 1 SCR 757: M. B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1991) 3 SCR 312]. 65. In TN. Godavarman Thirumulpad through the Amicus Curiae v. Ashok Khot & Anr. , 2006 (5) ·SCC 1, a three Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the question in the light of an 'apology' as a weapon defence by the contemner with a prayer to drop the proceedings. The Court took note of the foilowing observations of this Court in L. D. Jaikwa/ v. State of UP, (1984) 3 sec 405: "We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry-and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slipper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the. pen. For it is one thing to 'say' sorry-it is another. to 'feel' sorry". 66.

The Court, therefore, rejected the prayer and stated; ) "Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases ·to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward". 67. Similar view was taken in other cases also by this Court. ( 68. We are also satisfied that the so-called apology is not an act of penitence, contrition or regret. It has been tendered as a 'tactful move' when the contemners are in the tight corner and with a view to ward off the Court. Acceptance of such ·apology 0 in the case on hand would be allowing the contemners to go away with impunity after committing gross contempt of Court.

In our considered opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, imposition of fine in lieu of imprisonment will not meet the ends . of justice. 69. Considering the f9cts and circumstances in their entirety, in our opinion, ends of justice would be served if we hold tl)e respondents/contemners guilty under Section 12 of the Con- /tempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 94(c) and Rule 2- F/ of Order XX. XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article 129 of the Constitution and order the respondents-contemners to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two weeks i. e. fourteen days. 70. Ordered accordingly. N. J. Contempt Petitions disposed of. t I