Smt. Lavanya C & Anr. v. Vittal Gurudas Pai (Since Deceased) by LRs & Ors.

Judgment Date: March 5, 2025

The Supreme Court of India adjudicated upon an appeal arising from the judgment and order dated 23rd February 2021/16th March 2021, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru). 

The case pertains to the alleged disobedience of an undertaking given before the Trial Court concerning the non-alienation of a disputed property. The appellants, Smt. Lavanya C and Chalsani R.B., were held guilty of contempt by the High Court for violating the said undertaking, which had been recorded during the pendency of Original Suit No. 4191 of 2007. 

The Supreme Court, while upholding the High Court’s findings, modified the punishment imposed, taking into account the age and circumstances of the contemnors.


Factual Background

The present appeal originates from Original Suit No. 4191 of 2007, wherein the respondents (original plaintiffs) sought a declaration that the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 30th April 2004 be revoked, rescinded, and terminated. The JDA pertained to the construction of residential apartments on a turnkey basis within 24 months, with a stipulated completion date of 31st October 2006. However, the construction was not completed within the agreed timeframe, leading the respondents to issue a legal notice for cancellation on 23rd March 2007 and subsequently institute the suit.

During the pendency of the suit, the defendants (appellants herein), through their counsel, undertook before the Trial Court on 11th July 2007 and reaffirmed on 13th August 2007 that they would not alienate the subject property. On 17th November 2007, the Trial Court recorded this undertaking and converted it into an order, which was extended from time to time. However, despite this order, the defendants allegedly executed multiple sale deeds, leading the plaintiffs to file Civil Misc. Application No. 38 of 2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), alleging wilful disobedience.

The Trial Court dismissed the contempt application on 2nd August 2013, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants had knowingly violated the court’s orders. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7055/2013 (CPC) before the High Court of Karnataka, which, vide judgment dated 16th March 2021, reversed the Trial Court’s decision and held the defendants guilty of contempt.

The High Court sentenced Contemnor No. 3 (Chalsani R.B.) to three months in civil prison and ordered the attachment of his property for one year, while Contemnor No. 2 (Smt. Lavanya C.) had her property attached for one year. Additionally, the contemnors were directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation within four weeks for the hardship caused to the plaintiffs. The attachment order was stayed for 60 days.

This judgment was challenged by the appellants before the Supreme Court of India, seeking relief against the High Court’s findings.

Observations And Analysis By The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India, after careful scrutiny of the factual matrix and legal principles involved, addressed the core issue—whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s order and holding the appellants guilty of wilful disobedience of their undertaking given before the Trial Court.

1. Violation of Undertaking and Contempt Jurisdiction

The Court reaffirmed the settled legal position that once an undertaking is given before a court, it assumes the character of a binding order, and its breach constitutes contempt. The undertaking given on 11th July 2007, reiterated on 13th August 2007, and subsequently incorporated into a formal judicial order on 17th November 2007, was extended from time to time. Despite this, the appellants executed sale deeds between 19th November 2007 and 13th December 2011, thereby flagrantly violating the court’s directive.

Citing Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 59 [1], the Bench reiterated that:

“Even if an injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience thereof does not get erased.”

The Court also relied on Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 [2], emphasizing that contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC are punitive in nature, akin to civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Lawyer-Client Relationship and Validity of Undertaking

The appellants attempted to evade liability by contending that the undertaking given by their counsel was without their express authorization. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument, highlighting the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship. The Court cited several precedents, including:

Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, (2015) 7 SCC 373 [3], stating that: 

“An advocate must be specifically authorized to settle or compromise a claim. A lawyer’s decision must align with the client’s instructions.”

Bar of Indian Lawyers v. National Institute of Communicable Diseases, (2024) 8 SCC 430 [4], where it was observed that:

 “Advocates cannot make concessions or undertakings to the Court without express client authorization.”

Applying these principles, the Bench held that the appellants had ample opportunity to challenge or seek modification of their undertaking but failed to do so for nearly four and a half years. Their inaction and subsequent alienation of the property despite express court orders were clear indicators of wilful disobedience.

3. Punishment and Proportionality of Sentence

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s finding of contempt but considered the proportionality of the sentence. Noting that Contemnor No. 3 (Chalsani R.B.) was 63 years old at the time of filing the appeal and approximately 68 years old at the time of judgment, the Court modified the punishment by removing the three-month civil imprisonment while maintaining all other penalties.

Additionally, the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 13 lakhs, with simple interest at 6% from 2nd August 2013, to reflect the gravity of the contempt while balancing the mitigating factors.


Final Judgment And Conclusion

Confirmation of Contempt Finding

The Court upheld the High Court’s decision that the appellants were guilty of wilful disobedience of their undertaking given before the Trial Court. It reiterated that the undertaking had the force of a judicial order and that its blatant violation justified the invocation of contempt jurisdiction. The alienation of the subject property despite multiple court orders left no room for doubt regarding the appellants’ intentional disregard for judicial authority.

The Supreme Court reinforced that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty of the law and the dignity of the courts. Citing Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409, the Bench observed:

“Contempt jurisdiction is exercised to protect the administration of justice, not to shield the dignity of an individual judge. Any act that shakes public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary must be addressed with severity.”

Modification of Sentence

While confirming the finding of contempt, the Court modified the quantum of punishment, considering the age and medical condition of Contemnor No. 3 (Chalsani R.B.), who was approximately 68 years old at the time of judgment. The original sentence of three months of civil imprisonment was set aside, but:

  • The attachment of the subject property for one year remained undisturbed.
  • The monetary penalty was enhanced from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 13 lakhs, payable within the stipulated period.
  • The compensation amount would carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, effective from 2nd August 2013.

Disposition of Appeal

The Court, thus, partly allowed and disposed of the appeal, with the above modifications, ensuring that the contempt was penalized appropriately while balancing humanitarian considerations. The judgment directed that:

  • The attachment of the property shall continue as ordered by the High Court.
  • The enhanced compensation of Rs. 13 lakhs, along with interest, must be paid within the stipulated time.
  • The order of civil imprisonment was deleted, considering the contemnor’s advanced age.

The Bench also clarified that all pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

This case serves as a strong precedent on the binding nature of court undertakings, the scope of contempt jurisdiction, and the balance between enforcing judicial authority and ensuring proportional punishment.

[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/772419/

[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1121727/

[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/131435358/

[4] https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/10/08/2024-scc-vol-8-part-3/