Issues for consideration: Whether the wilful breach of an assurancein the form of an undertaking given by a counsel/ advocate on behalf of hisclient to the court would amount to “civil contempt” as defi ned u/s. 2(b) ofthe Contempt of Court Act, 1971; whether the said undertaking could besaid to have been given to the court; whether the contempt court has thepower to declare any contemptuous transaction non est or void; whetherthe benefi ciaries of a contemptuous transaction have a right to be heard inthe contempt proceedings on the ground that they are necessary or properparties as they are bona fi de purchasers of the suit property for value withoutnotice; and whether the apology tendered by the contemnors deserves tobe accepted.Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s. 19 – Statutory appeals under– Statement made by the counsel appearing for the contemnors beforethe High Court in the form of an undertaking upon instructions of theclients that the property would not be sold till the disposal of the mainpetition – However, despite the undertaking, the appellants proceededto execute sale deeds in favour of diff erent parties and thereby, wilfullydisobeyed the order passed by the High Court – Contemnors heldguilty of contempt by the High Court and the sale transactions held tobe void – Correctness:Held: High Court did not commit any error in passing the impugnedjudgment and order – Undertaking was given to the High Court and thebreach or disobedience would attract the provisions of the 1971 Act. [Paras116 and 117] Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s. 2(b) – Expression ‘wilfuldisobedience’ – Meaning of – Wilful breach of an assurance in the formof an undertaking given by a counsel/advocate on behalf of his clientto the court, if would amount to ‘civil contempt’ as defi ned u/s. 2(b):Held: Expression “wilful” means act or omission which is donevoluntarily or intentionally and with the specifi c intent to do somethingwhich the law forbids or with the specifi c intent to fail to do something thelaw requires to be done, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregardthe law – It signifi es a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a badmotive or purpose – Assurance in the form of an undertaking given by acounsel/advocate on behalf of his client to the court, the wilful breach ordisobedience of the same would amount to ‘civil contempt’ as defi ned u/s.2(b) of the 1971 Act . [Paras 56 and 116(i)]Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s. 2(b) – Term Undertaking –Meaning of – Undertaking by the counsel, if undertaking given to thecourt:Held: Every undertaking given by a party to a litigation may not be anundertaking to the court – There exists a distinction between an undertakinggiven to a party to the lis and the undertaking given to a court – Undertakinggiven to a court attracts the provisions of the 1971 Act whereas anundertaking given to a party to the lis by way of an agreement of settlementor otherwise would not attract the provisions of the 1971 Act – Breach ofan undertaking given to the other party may not constitute the contempt ofcourt – However, whether a particular undertaking is an undertaking to thecourt or to the opposite party depends upon the facts and circumstances ofeach case and the language used – On facts, the undertaking could be saidto have been given to the court – Wilful breach of an assurance in the formof an undertaking given by a counsel/advocate on behalf of his client tothe court would amount to “civil contempt” as defi ned u/s. 2(b) . [Paras 72,73, 76-77 and 116(ii)]Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – Contempt of court – Transfer ofsuit property in contempt proceedings – Power of the contempt courtto declare any contemptuous transactions non est or void: Held: Though the transfer of the suit property pendente lite may notbe termed as void ab initio yet when the court is looking into such transfersin contempt proceedings the court can defi nitely declare such transactionsto be void in order to maintain the majesty of law – Apart from punishingthe contemnor, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directionsbe issued by the court either for reversal of the transactions by declaringthe said transactions to be void or proceed to pass appropriate directionsto the concerned authorities to ensure that the contumacious conduct onthe part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage ofthe contemnor or anyone claiming under him – On facts, the High Courtjustifi ed in declaring all the sale deeds executed by the contemnors in favourof the purchasers as non est; and that the sale deeds stand cancelled and setaside – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s. 52. [Paras 88, 89 and 116(iii)]Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – Contempt of court – Contemptproceedings – Impleadment of benefi ciaries of any contumacioustransaction as necessary parties:Held: Benefi ciaries of any contumacious transaction have no rightor locus to be heard in the contempt proceedings on the ground that theyare bona fi de purchasers of the property for value without notice and thus,are necessary parties – Contempt is between the court and the contemnorand no third party can involve itself into the same – It was not necessaryfor the High Court to implead the purchasers in the contempt proceedings– Purchasers were quietly watching the proceedings – It is not as if theywere not aware of what was happening however, when things went wrong,they now cry foul of not being impleaded as parties and heard by the HighCourt – Necessary parties. [Paras 97 and 116(iv)]Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s. 12 – Punishment for contemptof court – Apology tendered by the contemnors – Acceptance of:Held: Apology tendered should not be accepted as a matter ofcourse and the court is not bound to accept the same – Apology may beunconditional, unqualifi ed and bona fi de, still if the conduct is serious, whichhas caused damage to the dignity of the institution, the same should not beaccepted – There ought not to be a tendency by courts, to show compassionwhen disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity andwith total consciousness – All throughout the proceedings before the High Court, the stance of the appellants was that they committed a big mistakeby executing the sale deeds despite having given a clear-cut undertaking tothe court that they would not do so – In such circumstances, the appellantspleaded before the High Court that their apology may be accepted andthey may be discharged from the proceedings – Though the apology wastendered before the High Court in the fi rst instance, yet such apology doesnot deserve to be accepted and was rightly not accepted by the High Court.[Paras 100, 113 and 116(v)]Judicial notice – Matters pertaining to contempt of court:Held: It is noticed that the courts have shown undue leniency andmagnanimity towards the contemnors – Lenient attitude shown by the courtsactually emboldens unscrupulous litigants to disobey or commit breach ofthe order passed by any court or any undertaking given to the court withimpunity – Litigants, proceeded for contempt of court have realised that theyhave a very potent weapon in their hands in the form of apology – Thereought not to be a tendency by courts to show compassion when disobedienceof an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness.[Paras 101 and 102]Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s. 12 – Punishment for contempt ofcourt – Apology u/s. 12 – Concept of – Explained. [Paras 99, 111, 112]Contempt of Court – Contempt Jurisdiction – Exercise of –Governing principles– Stated. [Paras 40-45]Contempt of Court – Civil contempt – Commission of – Conditionsto be satisfied – Stated. [Para 43]