In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the
documents had been handed over by the appellant to his
mother, Late Sharda Bai, who was the rightful owner of the said
documents and the said fact was admitted by his mother by
filing an affidavit in another legal proceedings. Subsequently, the
said documents had been destroyed because of the flood and
therefore, it was impossible for the appellant to return the same
to the Court.
10. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as
under:
“2(b) “civil contempt” means willful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court or willful
breach of an undertaking given to a court;”
11. Upon perusal of the above mentioned definition of “civil
contempt”, it is very clear that so as to hold somebody guilty of
contempt of court, the concerned person must have willfully
disobeyed any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or any
other process of a court or should have willfully committed
breach of an undertaking given to a court.
12. In the instant case, from the facts stated hereinabove, it is
crystal clear that the appellant had no intention of committing
breach of the undertaking given to the court. It was physically
impossible for the appellant to produce the documents as the
documents had already been given by him to his mother, on
whose behalf he had collected the same from the court and the
said documents had been subsequently destroyed because of a
natural calamity. In our opinion, after knowing the above stated
facts, the court should not have directed the appellant to
produce the documents because it was impossible for the
appellant to produce the documents. It would not be fair on the
part of a court to give a direction to do something which is
impossible and if a person has been asked to do something
which is impossible and if he fails to do so, he cannot be held
guilty of contempt.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5728 OF 2005
GYANI CHAND
VERSUS
STATE OF A.P.
Dated:September 20, 2016.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in
Contempt Case No.58 of 2005 on 10.08.2005 by the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, this appeal has been filed by
the appellant, who has been held guilty of contempt of Court
and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for one week
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. It is pertinent to note that the
appellant has already undergone the sentence.
2. Undisputed facts giving rise to the present litigation in a
nutshell are as under:
The appellant had given an undertaking in I.A. No.11 of
1985 in O.S. No.231 of 1972 before the IXth Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad that he would “return the
documents on an undertaking to produce them whenever
directed”. The mother of the appellant, Late Sharda Bai was a
litigant in the afore-stated case, which had been disposed of in
1981. Some of the documents, which had been produced by the
mother of the appellant in the said case, were required by her
and as she was unable to remain present before the Court due
to her old age, she had requested the appellant to make an
application on her behalf, for return of the documents and,
accordingly, the appellant had made an application to the Court
for return of the documents, which had been produced by Late
Sharda Bai, the mother of the appellant. While returning the
documents, the appellant was asked to give an undertaking to
the Court that the said documents would be produced by him as
and when the same would be required by the Court.
3. The said documents, which were handed over to the
appellant, were given by him to his mother, Late Sharda Bai.
The said documents were required in I.A. No.632 of 2001 in O.S.
No.231 of 1972, which was pending in the Court of IXth Junior
Civil Judge, Civil Court at Hyderabad. By an affidavit dated
5.10.2001, Late Sharda Bai had admitted the fact that the said
documents were given to her by the appellant and she had
further stated in the said affidavit that the appellant in the said
proceedings had no right to get the said documents. Thus, it is
an admitted fact that the present appellant had handed over the
said documents to his mother Late Sharda Bai, who had right to
retain the same as the documents were produced by her.
4. It is also an admitted fact that Sharda Bai expired on
02.06.2004.
5. When the appellant was asked to produce the said
documents as per the undertaking given by him to the court, the
appellant had submitted before the court that he had already
handed over the said documents to Late Sharda Bai, who had
expired on 02.06.2004 and he had further submitted that his
house was “badly hit by the cyclone in the year 1999, as a result
of which his house was submerged into the flood water
consequent to that it was collapsed as his house was built up of
mud and covered with asbestos sheets resulting most of their
belongings were vanished”. Thus, the said documents were
neither with the appellant nor were they available at that time.
According to the appellant, the case in which the said
documents were required, was filed by the relatives of the
appellant and they had filed an application for production of the
said documents to pressurise the appellant in their family
affairs.
6. Thus, it was the case of the appellant before the Court that
it was impossible for him to return the documents handed over
to him as the said documents were handed over by him to the
rightful owner of the documents and the documents were also
destroyed.
7. As the matter was taken up seriously by the Court
concerned, reference was made for initiating contempt
proceedings against the appellant as the documents were not
returned as per the undertaking and the matter was placed
before the High Court and by virtue of the impugned order, the
High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty
of contempt of court and therefore, the appellant has been
punished.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, we are of the view that there is no willful breach of the
undertaking given to the court by the appellant, for which he
can be held guilty of committing contempt of the Court.
9. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the
documents had been handed over by the appellant to his
mother, Late Sharda Bai, who was the rightful owner of the said
documents and the said fact was admitted by his mother by
filing an affidavit in another legal proceedings. Subsequently, the
said documents had been destroyed because of the flood and
therefore, it was impossible for the appellant to return the same
to the Court.
10. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as
under:
“2(b) “civil contempt” means willful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court or willful
breach of an undertaking given to a court;”
11. Upon perusal of the above mentioned definition of “civil
contempt”, it is very clear that so as to hold somebody guilty of
contempt of court, the concerned person must have willfully
disobeyed any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or any
other process of a court or should have willfully committed
breach of an undertaking given to a court.
12. In the instant case, from the facts stated hereinabove, it is
crystal clear that the appellant had no intention of committing
breach of the undertaking given to the court. It was physically
impossible for the appellant to produce the documents as the
documents had already been given by him to his mother, on
whose behalf he had collected the same from the court and the
said documents had been subsequently destroyed because of a
natural calamity. In our opinion, after knowing the above stated
facts, the court should not have directed the appellant to
produce the documents because it was impossible for the
appellant to produce the documents. It would not be fair on the
part of a court to give a direction to do something which is
impossible and if a person has been asked to do something
which is impossible and if he fails to do so, he cannot be held
guilty of contempt.
13. It is deplorable that the appellant has been held guilty and
has also undergone the sentence imposed by the High Court.
We hold that the appellant was not guilty of committing
contempt of court as there was no willful breach of the
undertaking given to the court.
14. For the afore-stated reasons, we are not in agreement with
the judgment delivered by the High Court and therefore, we set
aside the same and allow the appeal with no order as to costs.
……….…............................J.
[ANIL R. DAVE]
.….....................................J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
…......................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi,
September 20, 2016.
Print Page
documents had been handed over by the appellant to his
mother, Late Sharda Bai, who was the rightful owner of the said
documents and the said fact was admitted by his mother by
filing an affidavit in another legal proceedings. Subsequently, the
said documents had been destroyed because of the flood and
therefore, it was impossible for the appellant to return the same
to the Court.
10. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as
under:
“2(b) “civil contempt” means willful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court or willful
breach of an undertaking given to a court;”
11. Upon perusal of the above mentioned definition of “civil
contempt”, it is very clear that so as to hold somebody guilty of
contempt of court, the concerned person must have willfully
disobeyed any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or any
other process of a court or should have willfully committed
breach of an undertaking given to a court.
12. In the instant case, from the facts stated hereinabove, it is
crystal clear that the appellant had no intention of committing
breach of the undertaking given to the court. It was physically
impossible for the appellant to produce the documents as the
documents had already been given by him to his mother, on
whose behalf he had collected the same from the court and the
said documents had been subsequently destroyed because of a
natural calamity. In our opinion, after knowing the above stated
facts, the court should not have directed the appellant to
produce the documents because it was impossible for the
appellant to produce the documents. It would not be fair on the
part of a court to give a direction to do something which is
impossible and if a person has been asked to do something
which is impossible and if he fails to do so, he cannot be held
guilty of contempt.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5728 OF 2005
GYANI CHAND
VERSUS
STATE OF A.P.
Dated:September 20, 2016.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in
Contempt Case No.58 of 2005 on 10.08.2005 by the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, this appeal has been filed by
the appellant, who has been held guilty of contempt of Court
and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for one week
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. It is pertinent to note that the
appellant has already undergone the sentence.
2. Undisputed facts giving rise to the present litigation in a
nutshell are as under:
The appellant had given an undertaking in I.A. No.11 of
1985 in O.S. No.231 of 1972 before the IXth Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad that he would “return the
documents on an undertaking to produce them whenever
directed”. The mother of the appellant, Late Sharda Bai was a
litigant in the afore-stated case, which had been disposed of in
1981. Some of the documents, which had been produced by the
mother of the appellant in the said case, were required by her
and as she was unable to remain present before the Court due
to her old age, she had requested the appellant to make an
application on her behalf, for return of the documents and,
accordingly, the appellant had made an application to the Court
for return of the documents, which had been produced by Late
Sharda Bai, the mother of the appellant. While returning the
documents, the appellant was asked to give an undertaking to
the Court that the said documents would be produced by him as
and when the same would be required by the Court.
3. The said documents, which were handed over to the
appellant, were given by him to his mother, Late Sharda Bai.
The said documents were required in I.A. No.632 of 2001 in O.S.
No.231 of 1972, which was pending in the Court of IXth Junior
Civil Judge, Civil Court at Hyderabad. By an affidavit dated
5.10.2001, Late Sharda Bai had admitted the fact that the said
documents were given to her by the appellant and she had
further stated in the said affidavit that the appellant in the said
proceedings had no right to get the said documents. Thus, it is
an admitted fact that the present appellant had handed over the
said documents to his mother Late Sharda Bai, who had right to
retain the same as the documents were produced by her.
4. It is also an admitted fact that Sharda Bai expired on
02.06.2004.
5. When the appellant was asked to produce the said
documents as per the undertaking given by him to the court, the
appellant had submitted before the court that he had already
handed over the said documents to Late Sharda Bai, who had
expired on 02.06.2004 and he had further submitted that his
house was “badly hit by the cyclone in the year 1999, as a result
of which his house was submerged into the flood water
consequent to that it was collapsed as his house was built up of
mud and covered with asbestos sheets resulting most of their
belongings were vanished”. Thus, the said documents were
neither with the appellant nor were they available at that time.
According to the appellant, the case in which the said
documents were required, was filed by the relatives of the
appellant and they had filed an application for production of the
said documents to pressurise the appellant in their family
affairs.
6. Thus, it was the case of the appellant before the Court that
it was impossible for him to return the documents handed over
to him as the said documents were handed over by him to the
rightful owner of the documents and the documents were also
destroyed.
7. As the matter was taken up seriously by the Court
concerned, reference was made for initiating contempt
proceedings against the appellant as the documents were not
returned as per the undertaking and the matter was placed
before the High Court and by virtue of the impugned order, the
High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty
of contempt of court and therefore, the appellant has been
punished.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, we are of the view that there is no willful breach of the
undertaking given to the court by the appellant, for which he
can be held guilty of committing contempt of the Court.
9. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the
documents had been handed over by the appellant to his
mother, Late Sharda Bai, who was the rightful owner of the said
documents and the said fact was admitted by his mother by
filing an affidavit in another legal proceedings. Subsequently, the
said documents had been destroyed because of the flood and
therefore, it was impossible for the appellant to return the same
to the Court.
10. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as
under:
“2(b) “civil contempt” means willful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court or willful
breach of an undertaking given to a court;”
11. Upon perusal of the above mentioned definition of “civil
contempt”, it is very clear that so as to hold somebody guilty of
contempt of court, the concerned person must have willfully
disobeyed any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or any
other process of a court or should have willfully committed
breach of an undertaking given to a court.
12. In the instant case, from the facts stated hereinabove, it is
crystal clear that the appellant had no intention of committing
breach of the undertaking given to the court. It was physically
impossible for the appellant to produce the documents as the
documents had already been given by him to his mother, on
whose behalf he had collected the same from the court and the
said documents had been subsequently destroyed because of a
natural calamity. In our opinion, after knowing the above stated
facts, the court should not have directed the appellant to
produce the documents because it was impossible for the
appellant to produce the documents. It would not be fair on the
part of a court to give a direction to do something which is
impossible and if a person has been asked to do something
which is impossible and if he fails to do so, he cannot be held
guilty of contempt.
13. It is deplorable that the appellant has been held guilty and
has also undergone the sentence imposed by the High Court.
We hold that the appellant was not guilty of committing
contempt of court as there was no willful breach of the
undertaking given to the court.
14. For the afore-stated reasons, we are not in agreement with
the judgment delivered by the High Court and therefore, we set
aside the same and allow the appeal with no order as to costs.
……….…............................J.
[ANIL R. DAVE]
.….....................................J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
…......................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi,
September 20, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment