SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.

com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

°
SCC SCC
Page 1
Online Web Edition

Printed For
:
,
Wednesday
Aparna
,

,
kumari
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt
January 10 , 2024
Nirma University
. .
Ltd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONLINE SCC OnlineWeb Edition

: www.scconline.com
://
http
Thesure
st way
tolegalresearch
!" © 2024 EBC Publishing .
Pvt Ltd

2022 SCC OnLine TS 1744

In the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad

(BEFOREP
. NAVEENRAOANDM . G
. PRIYADARSINI
, .)
JJ
Veldanda Srilatha .. Petitioner
;
Versus

Gundumalla Anantha Reddy and Another

.
Respondents
Contempt Case No
. 1034 of 2021
Decided on April 29
, 2022
The Order of the Court was delivered by
.
P NAVEEN RAO
, .:-
J This Contempt case is filed alleging violation of
the directions issued by this Court in I.A
. .
No 1 of 2019 in A.S
. .
No 260
of 2017 dated 1.8.2019
.
.
2 Briefly noted the facts are as under
:
.
3 .
A.S .
No 260 of 2017 is filed by the respondents and three others
challenging the judgment and decree in O.S
. .
No 101 of 2014 dated
21.12.2016 on the file of the District ,
Judge .
Mahaboobnagar The
petitioner is the sole respondent
. In ASMP No
. 673 of 2017
, the Division
Bench of this Court by order dated 3.4.2017 stayed passing of final
.
decree This order is made .
absolute While ,
so alleging that the
appellants sold some of the suit schedule properties in spite of decree

granted to her by the trial Court and trying to alienate some more
, she
filed .
I.A .
No 1 of 2019 praying to grant injunction against the
respondents not to alienate suit schedule properties
. When the I.A
.,
came up for ,consideration on behalf of ,respondents
/appellants learned
counsel sought time to file counter
. Taking due note of the fact that the
appellants were resorting to sell suit schedule ,
properties the Division
Bench passed following order on :
1.8.2019
."Sri .
N Ashok ,
Kumar learned counsel for the
/appellants
,respondents seeks time to file a counter
.
,However as we find that the appellants have been executing sale
deeds in relation to the property in Sy . .
No 156 of Pallabuzurg
,
village Narayanpet ,
mandal Mahaboobnagar Narayanpet ,
district
which falls in item .
no 1 of the suit schedule property in relation to
which preliminary decree was already ,
passed there shall be an
injunction restraining the /a
respondents
ppellants from executing any
further documents in relation to the land in the afore stated survey
,
number pending further orders
. Poston 16.08.2019
"
. In this
4 contempt ,
case petitioner alleges that in violation of the
 SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

°
SCC SCC
Page 2
Online Web Edition

Printed For:
,
Wednesday
,

Aparna kumari
,
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt
January 10 , 2024
Nima University
. .
Ltd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONLINE SCC OnlineWeb Edition : www.scconline.com

://
http
Thesure
st way
tolegalresearch
!" © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt . .
Ltd

decree granted by the trial Court and interim orders of this court
, the
respondents have sold 177 sq yards in survey .
no 156 on 14.8.2019
vide document .
no 9835 of 2019 registered in Sub Registrar ,
Office
.
Narayanpet Contending that by said action respondents have
deliberately and wilfully violated the orders of this Court and thus
committed contempt of this Court
, prayed to punish them
.
.
5 Once an order is passed by the ,
Court the order must be
/observed
complied in true letter and spirit
.
.6 Section 2 )
(b of the Contempt of Courts Act
, 1971 defines 'civil
'
contempt to mean wilful disobedience of any ,judgment ,
decree
,direction ,
order writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an
undertaking given to a Court
.
.
7 Constitutional Courts have laid down principles on when to
exercise contempt .
jurisdiction
.
8 Disobedience of an order of ,
court whether prohibitive or
,
mandatory whether made ex parte or upon hearing both ,
parties or
interim or perpetual
, amounts to contempt if it is calculated or tends to
interfere with the administration of justice
, or brings it into disrespect
or disregard (Jagarlmudi Chandramouli v. K
. Appa Rao
-). The power
, to
punish for contempt
, is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of

.
justice (KapildeoPrasad
Sahv. Stateof Bihar
).
.
9 Any interference with the course of justice is an affront to the
maiesty of law and the conduct of interference is punishable as
contempt of .court Public interest demands that there should be no
interference with the judicial ,
process and the effect of the judicial
decision should not be -empted
pre or .
circumvented (Reliance
Petrochemicals .
Ltd .
v Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers
Bombay (P
) ).
.3
Ltd
.
10 If a party
, who is fully in the know of the /order
judgment of the
,
Court is conscious and aware of the consequences and implications of
the order of the Court
, acts in violation ,
thereof it must be held that
disobedience is wilful
. To establish contempt of court
, it is sufficient to
prove that the conduct was wilful
, and that the contemnor knew of all
the facts which made it a breach of the .
undertaking
.11 The following conditions must be satisfied before a person can
be held to have committed civil :contempt (i) there must be a
,
judgment ,
decree ,
direction ,
order writ or other process of a court
; )(ji
there must be disobedience to such judgment
, ,
decree ,
direction ,order
writ or other process of a court
; and )(ji such disobedience of the
,
judgment ,
decree ,
direction ,
order writ or other process of a court must
be wilful
. [Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai (supra
)].
.
12 It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as
,
possible makinq all allowances for errors of judament
. It is only when a
 SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

°
SCC SCC
Page 3
Online Web Edition

Printed For:
,
Wednesday
,

Aparna kumari
,
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt
January 10 , 2024
Nirma University
. .
Ltd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONLINE SCC OnlineWeb Edition : www.scconline.com

://
http
Thesure
st way
tolegalresearch
!" © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt . .
Ltd

clear case of contumacious ,

conduct not explainable ,
otherwise arises
that the contemnor must be punished
. Punishment under the law of
contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of
one's duty and in defiance of authority
. Contempt proceedings are
-criminal
quasi in nature
, and the standard of proof is the same as in
other criminal .
cases The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection
of all ,safeguards
/rights including benefit of doubt
. Kanwar Singh Saini
v. HighCourtof Delh
^.
.
13 The sanctity to judicial proceedings is paramount to a society
governed by law
. ,
Otherwise the very edifice of democracy breaks and
anarchy .
rains The Contempt of Courts Act is intended to correct a
person deviating the norm and trying to breach the /assuming
law law
on to .
himself It intends to secure confidence of the people in the
administration of justice by disciplining those erring in disobeying the
orders of the Court
/undertaking given to court
.
.
14 To hold a person guilty of civil contempt 'wilful '
disobedience is
an indispensable .
requirement Whether the conduct of contemnor is
deliberate and wilful can be considered by assessing the material on
record and attendant .
circumstances

. In Kalyaneshwar
15 i . Unionof India
v , Supreme
Courtheldas
:
under

."11 Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn

., )
1999 defines "contempt
,
as "conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a court or
".
legislature It also adds that "because such conduct interferes with
the administration of justice
, it is punishable
".
.
12 This special jurisdiction has to be unquestionably invoked
when the offending acts are intentional by the contemnor at the cost
of eroding the system of administration of justice which practise is
necessarily required to be deprecated at the very initial .
stage
)(13 to )(22 xxxxxxx

.
23 It is a settled principle of law that contempt is a matter
primarily between the court and the .
contemnor The court has to
take into consideration the behaviour of the ,
contemnor the
attendant circumstances and their impact upon the justice delivery
.
system If the conduct of the contemnor is such that it
hampers the justice delivery system as well as lowers the
dignity of the courts
, then the courts are expected to take
somewhat stringent view to prevent further institutional
damage and to protect the faith of the public in the justice
delivery .
system
(emphasis )
supplied
.
16 It is emphasised that there can be no laxity
, as otherwise orders
 SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

°
SCC SCC
Page 4
Online Web Edition

Printed For:
,
Wednesday
,

Aparna kumari
,
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt
January 10 , 2024
Nima University
. .
Ltd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONLINE SCC OnlineWeb Edition : www.scconline.com

://
http
Thesure
st waytolegalresearch
!" © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt . .
Ltd

of court would be the subject of mockery (Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak

°;
Ghosh Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel ChandrakantDhulabhai
).
Disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of
law on which the judicial system .
rests
.
17 At this ,
stage the observations made by the Division Bench of
this Court in C.C
. .No 1974 of 2016 are apt to be noted . The Division
Bench extensively reviewed the law on the jurisdiction of writ Court in
contempt of Court proceedings
. The observations made there in and
reasons assigned in support of the decision would apply to the facts of
this case
. Division Bench :
observed
"If a party who is fully in the know of the order of the Court
, or is
conscious and aware of the consequences and implications of the
undertaking furnished by him to the Court
, ignores it or acts in
violation thereof
, it must be held that disobedience is wilful
. It may
not be possible to prove the actual intention behind the act or
.
omission A Court can approach the question only objectively
, and it
may presume the intention from the act done as every man is
presumed to intend the probable consequence of his .
act .(N.S
,
Kanwar 1995 Cri LJ 1261 P
H
& HC DB
). To establish contempt of
,
court it is sufficient to prove that the conduct was willful and that
the contemnor knew of all the facts which made it a breach of the
.
order It is not necessary to prove that he appreciated that it did
breach the .
order .(St Helen's .
Ltd v. Transport & General '
Workers
;
Union Adam Phones Ltd
. v. Goldschmidt
, )(1994 4 All ER 486
).
While the jurisdiction exercised in cases of contempt is -
quasi
criminal in nature and the court must be ,satisfied on the material
before it, that contempt of court was in fact ,committed such
satisfaction may be derived from the circumstances of the case
.
(Ram Autar Shukla v. Arvind Shukla
, 1995 Supp (2
) SCC 130
; Bank
of India v
. Vijay ,
Transport )(2000 8 SCC 512
). For the purposes of
judging 'civil contempt
', intention or mens rea is not relevant
. The
question is only whether the breach was on account of wilful
disobedience ,i.e whether it was not casual or accidental and
.
unintentional .(V.C Govindaswami Mudali v. .B Subba ,
Reddy
)(1986 2 ALT 131
).
.
18 Guided by the above ,
principles the submission of learned
counsel for respondents that violation was not deliberate and willful is
.
considered
.
19 Photocopy of the sale deed dated 13.8.2019 is filed in the
contempt case paper book from pages 51 to 63
. The property covered
by said sale deed is part of the properties mentioned in the suit
.
schedule This transaction is in violation of the orders of this Court
dated 3.4.2017 and .
1.8.2019
 SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

°
SCC SCC
Page 5
Online Web Edition

Printed For
:
,
Wednesday
,

Aparna kumari
,
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt
January 10 , 2024
Nirma University
. .
Ltd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONLINE SCC OnlineWeb Edition : www.scconline.com

://
http
Thesure
st waytolegalresearch
!" © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt . .
Ltd

.20 Counter
-affidavit is filed on behalf of both respondents deposed
by the second .respondent Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the affidavit read as
:
under
.
"6 I humbly submit that I am not aware of the interim order
passed by the Hon'ble Court on 01.08.2019 as I was not present on
the day
. Since I am in urgent need of money to meet my financial
,necessities I executed a Sale Deed on 14.08.2019 for 177.77 Sq
.
.,
Yds in Sy. .No 156 to a third party
. This is occurred due to
ignorance of interim order passed by this Hon'ble .
Court the interim
order passed by the Hon'ble Court is intimated to the Sub
-Registrar
by the Petitioner on .20.08.2019 ,
Thereafter the entire property are
kept in disputed .
list I respectfully submit that our family suffered a
lot financially for the last several years due to various .
problems My
elder brother .
Sri Chakradhar Reddy died recently due to long illness
and my younger brother is also suffering with Cancer and
undergoing treatment in a private hospital at Hyderabad
. As a
matter of fact
, I am not aware of the restrain order passed by this
Hon'ble Court in IA No
. /2019
1 which was came to my notice after
.
20.08.2019 Thus my alienation is not ,
intentional deliberate or
.
wilfull To show my ,
bonafidy I requested and persuaded the
purchaser of the property to cancel the sale deed by mutual consent
and expressed my desire to pay back the amount of sale
consideration and registration ,
charges without .
success
.
7 I submit that .
Sy .
No 156 is an extent of more than -00
.9
Ac
.
Gts As per the judgemnt & Decree
, the petitioner is entitle only for
/6th of the propertyin Sy
1 . No
. 156
, thusno prejudiceis causedto
her as her 1
/6th share is only to the extent of Ac
-25
.1 .,
Gts out of
-00
.9
ac .
Gts
.8 I humbly submit that I expressed my -cun
onditional apology to
this Hon'ble Court for the action done by me which is neither
,
intentional deliberate or wilfull
, but was occurred due to the facts
stated above for which this Hon'ble Court may pleased to close the
Contempt .
Case
.
21 The respondents do not deny that the property sold on
13.8.2019 is part of the suit schedule land on which decree is granted
to the petitioner
. They only try to contend that they were not aware of
the interim order dated .
13.8.2019 This is a blatant lie and do not show
any remorse of what they have done
. ,
Firstly the property is covered by
the preliminary decree of the trial court and in terms thereof petitioner
is entitledto 1
/6th share
. Contraryto the judgmentanddecree
, it could
not have been sold
. This decree is not stayed by this Court
. ,
Secondly
the order dated 13.8.2019 was passed in the presence of the counsel
appearing for them
. ,
Therefore they can not plead ignorance
. ,
Thus the
 SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

°
SCC SCC
Page 6
Online Web Edition

Printed For:
,
Wednesday
,

Aparna kumari
,
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt
January 10 , 2024
Nirma University
. .
Ltd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONLINE SCC OnlineWeb Edition : www.scconline.com

://
http
Thesure
st waytolegalresearch
!" © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt . .
Ltd

sale transaction undertaken by them is clearly in violation of the orders

of this Court
. In the facts of this ,
case it is also safe to assume that the
violation is deliberate and .
willful

.
22 In the facts of this ,
case as noted ,
above whether offering
apology is bona fide to purge the petitioner from contempt is next
.
considered
.
23 Section )
(1
12 of the Contempt of Courts ,
Act and the
explanationthereto
, enablesthe Court to remit the punishment
awarded for committing contempt of court on an apology being made to
the satisfaction of the .Court While an apology should not be rejected if
the accused makes it bona fides
, a conduct which abuses
, and makes a
mockery ,
of the judicial process of the Court must be dealt with iron
hand (Bal Kishan Giri v. State of U.P
.°). An apology can neither be a
defence nor a justification for an act which tantamount to contempt of
.
Court An apology can be accepted in cases where the conduct
, for
which the apology is ,
given is such that it can be "ignored without
compromising the dignity of the court
, or it is intended to be evidence
of real contrition
. It should be .sincere Apology cannot be accepted in
case it is hollow
, there is no remorse
, no ,regret no repentance
, or if it
is only a device to escape the rigour of the .law Such an apology is
merely a "paper ".
apology [Bal Kishan Giri )].
(supra
.
24 In Bal Kishan Giri ),
(supra Supreme Court held as under
:
."16 -section
Sub )
(1 of Section 12 of the Act and the Explanation
attached thereto enables the court to remit the punishment awarded
for committing the contempt of court on an apology being made to
the satisfaction of the court
. ,
However an apology should not be
reiected merely on the ground that it is qualified or tendered at a
belated stage if the accused makes it bona .
fide A conduct which
abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process of the court is to
be dealt with iron hands and no person can tinker with it to prevent
,
,
prejudice obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice
.
There can be cases where the wisdom of rendering an apology dawns
upon only at a later .
stage ,
Undoubtedly an apology cannot be a
,
defence a justification
, or an appropriate punishment for an act
which tantamounts to contempt of .
court An apology can be
accepted in case where the conduct for which the apology is given is
such that it can be "ignored without compromising the dignity of the
",
court or it is intended to be the evidence of real .
contrition It
should be sincere
. Apology cannot be accepted in case it is hollow
;
there is no remorse
; no regret
; no repentance
, or if it is only a device
to escape the rigour of the .
law Such an apology can merely be
termed as "paper ".
apology

. In Gupta
25 , .
T.C v. Bimal KumarDutta
?, SupremeCourtheld as
 SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

°
SCC SCC
Page 7
Online Web Edition

Printed For
:
,
Wednesday
Aparna
,

,
kumari
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt
January 10 , 2024
Nirma University
. .
Ltd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONLINE SCC OnlineWeb Edition

: www.scconline.com
://
http
Thesure
st waytolegalresearch
!" © 2024 EBC Publishing .
Pvt .
Ltd

:
under

."10 .... A contempt action being in the nature of quasi

-criminal
proceeding the degree of satisfaction that must be reached by the
court to hold a person guilty of commission of contempt would be
akin to what is required to prove a criminal ,
charge ,
namely proof
beyond reasonable .
doubt The order of the court in respect of which
violation is alleged ,
must ,
therefore be clear
, unambiguous and
unequivocal and defiance thereof must be apparent on the very face
of the action with which a contemnor is charged
. An interpretation of
the terms of court's order in respect of which disobedience is alleged
would not be appropriate while dealing with a charge of contempt
.
.11 In an earlier part of the present ,order we have noticed the
unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the appellant
before the High Court in the event his explanations were to be found
.unacceptable The Explanation to Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts ,
Act ,
1971 makes it clear that an apology tendered by a
contemnor should not be rejected merely on the ground that it is
qualified or conditional so long it is made bona fide
. In his reply
, the
,
appellant after offering his ,explanations had tendered his
unconditional and unqualified apology in the event the explanations
did not commend for acceptance of the High .
Court
.
12 In the decision rendered in O.P
. Sharma v. High Court of P
H
&
)
2011
[( 6 SCC 86 : )(2011 3 SCC )(Civ 218 : )(2011 2 SCC )(Cri
:
821 )(2011 2 SCC (L
)
S
& ],
11 this Court has already held that in
view of the Explanation to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
an apology ought not to be rejected only on the ground that it is
qualified so long as it is made bona fide
. In the present case there is
nothing on record to suggest that the unqualified and unconditional
apology tendered by the appellant in his reply before the High Court
was actuated by reasons that are not bona fide
."
.26 On this issue the Division Bench in CC No
. 1974 of 2016
reviewed entire case law
. Division Bench observed as under
:
"The next question which necessitates examination is whether the
apology tendered by the -contemnor
respondent merits .
acceptance
It is no doubt true that the -contemnor
respondent has sought
,
pardon and has tendered his unconditional .
apology Section )
(1
12
of the Contempt of Courts ,
Act and the Explanation ,
thereto enables
the Court to remit the punishment awarded for committing contempt
of court on an apology being made to the satisfaction of the .
Court
While an apology should not be rejected if the accused makes it
bona fide a conduct which ,
abuses and makes a mockery ,
of the
judicial process of the Court must be dealt with an iron .
hand (Bal
Kishan Giri v
. State of U.P
., )(2014 7 SCC 280
). An apology can
neither be a defence nor a justification for an act which tantamounts
 SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

°
SCC SCC
Page 8
Online Web Edition

Printed For:
,
Wednesday
,

Aparna kumari
,
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt
January 10 , 2024
Nima University
. .
Ltd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONLINE SCC OnlineWeb Edition : www.scconline.com

://
http
Thesure
st waytolegalresearch
!" © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt . Ltd .

to contempt of court
. An apology can be accepted in cases where the
,
conduct for which the apology is ,
given is such that it can be
"ignored without compromising the dignity of the court
", or it is
intended to be evidence of real .
contrition It should be .
sincere
Apology cannot be accepted in case it is hollow
, there is no remorse
,
no regret
, no repentance
, or if it is only a device to escape the rigour
of the law
. Such an apology is merely a "paper ".
apology (Bal Kishan
).
Giri
An apology tendered is not to be accepted as a matter of course
,
and the court is competent to reject the apology and impose the
punishment recording reasons .
therefor (Bal Kishan ).
Giri If the
apology is found to be without real contrition and ,
remorse and to
have been tendered merely as a weapon of defence
, the court may
refuse to accept it. 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
(Bal Kishan ;
Giri Debabrata Bandhopadhyaya v. State of W.B
.; Mulk
Raj v. State of Punjab
, )(1972 3 SCC 839 : AIR 1972 SC 1197
,
Hailakandi Bar Assn
. . State of ,Assam )(1996
v 9 SCC 74 : AIR 1996
SC 1925
, . Elumalai v. A.G.L
C . ,
Irudayaraj )(2009 4 SCC 213 : AIR
2000 SC 2214 and Ranveer Yadav v. State of Bihar
, )(2010 11 SCC
).
493 A mere statement of apology by the contemnor before the
court would hardly amount to his purging himself of contempt
. The
Court must be satisfied of the genuineness of the .
apology If the
court is so ,
satisfied and on this basis accepts the apology as
,
genuine it should pass an order holding that the contemnor has
purged himself of .
contempt (Pravin .
C Shah v. .
K.A .
Mohd ,
Ali
)(2001 8 SCC 650
).

An apology is not intended to operate as a universal .

panacea
.(M.Y Shareef .
v Judges of Nagpur High ,
Court AIR 1995 SC 19
;
Pravin C
. Shah
; .
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad )(102 v. Ashok Khot
,
)(2006 5 SCC 1
). It is not a weapon of defence forged to purge the
guilty of the offence
, but is intended to be evidence of real
,
contrition the consciousness of a wrong ,done of an injury ,
inflicted
and the earnest desire to make such reparation as lies in the
wrongdoer's .
power (Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper
,Construction ) 995
(1 3 SCC 507
). Only then is it of any avail in a
court of justice
. Unless that is done
, not only is the tendered apology
robbed of all grace but it also ceases to be a full and frank admission
of a wrong ,
done which it is intended to be
. (Hiren ,
Bose Re - AIR
1969 Cal 1
; Patel Rajnikant ,
Dhulabhai )(2008 14 SCC 561
). The
apology tendered by the ,
contemnor to be accepted by the ,
Court
should be a product of .
remorse .(M.C Mehta v. Union of ,
India
 SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

°
SCC SCC
Page 9
Online Web Edition

Printed For:
,
Wednesday
,

Aparna kumari
,
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt
January 10 , 2024
Nirma University
. .
Ltd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ONLINE SCC OnlineWeb Edition : www.scconline.com

://
http
Thesure
st wayt
o legalresearch
!" © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt . .
Ltd

)(2003 5 SCC 376

). Public interest demands that when a person has
interfered with the judicial ,
process the judicial decision should not
be -empted
pre or circumvented merely by a conditional or an
unconditional .
apology While it is open to the ,
Court in an
appropriate ,
case to accept an unconditional apology based on the
factual ,
position dropping the proceeding of contumacious acts
deliberately ,
done after accepting the apology offered
, would be a
premium for the flagrant abuse of the judicial .
process (Ram Autar
,
Shukla 1995 Supp (2
) SCC 130
).
In .
L.D Jaikwal v. State of U.P
, )(1984 3 SCC 405
., the Supreme
Court :-
observed
11
We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the
-s" ay
lap -and
sorry forget
" school of thought in
administration of contempt .
jurisprudence Saying "sorry
does not make the person taking 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 -it
sorry is another to "feel .....
sorry
(emphasis ).
supplied
.27 In the facts of this case also
, it is seen that apology offered is
not sincere and bona fide
. It is clear from facts on record that it is
made only to escape the consequence of deliberate and willful
disobedience of the order of the Court
. Contemors did not accept their
mistake and expressed apology at the first opportunity offered to them
.
The conduct of contemnors as noted above cannot be ignored while
considering their .
apology ,
Thus it does not amount to full and frank
admission of wrong .
done It is a paper apology made without any
,
sincerity it is hallowed
. As noted by Division Bench
, the observations of
Supreme Court in Ram Autar Shukla (cited )supra dropping the
proceedings of contumacious act deliberately done after accepting
apology offered would be a permission for flagrant abuse of judicial
.process Observations of Supreme Court in L.D
. ,
Jaikwal -s' ay
lap -
sorry
forget cannot be accepted
' aptly apply to this case
. ,
Thus apology
offered by contemnors is rejected
.
.
28 By their conduct -contemors
respondent have interfered with
the administration of justice
, made mockery of the order of this Court
.
Wilfully and deliberately they have sold the suit schedule property in
utter violation of the orders of this Court
. It is intended to frustrate the
judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court and orders of this
Court and deprive the petitioner the fruits of her .
success It is an
affront to the majesty of .
law Such flagrant violation must be dealt with
.sternly It is unfortunate that the petitioner has to initiate contempt
proceedings against her father and .brother The Court has not seen any
 SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

°
SCC SCCOnline
Page 10 Wednesday
Printed For
:
,
WebEdition

Aparna
, © 2024EBCPublishing
January 10 , 2024
,
kumari
.Pvt Ltd
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nirma University
ONLINE SCC OnlineWeb Edition
: www.scconline.com
://
http
Thesure
st waytolegalresearch
!" © 2024 EBC Publishing .
Pvt .
Ltd

remorse in their .
behaviour
.
29 Considering the gravity of their ,
offence Contemnors are held
guilty of contempt
, their apology is rejected and is imposed sentence of
imprisonment with fine
. Having regard to age and ,health first
-contemnor
respondent shall be detained in civil prison for a period of
fifteen days and shall in addition pay a fine of Rs
. /-
2,000 (Rupees two
thousand )only within four weeks from today
. The second respondent
-
contemnor shall be detained in civil prison for a period of thirty days
and shall in addition pay a fine of Rs
. /-
2,000 (Rupees two thousand
)
only within four weeks from .
today
.
30 As required under Rule 32
)
(1 of the Contempt of Court Rules
,
,
1980 the -contemnors
respondent shall be entitled to subsistence
,
allowance during the period of detention in civil .
prison The
subsistence allowance for the -contemors
respondent is fixed at .
Rs
/-
500 per day .
each The petitioner shall deposit the amount for the
period of detention of contemors
. The petitioner is entitled to recover
this amount from the respondents during the final decree .
proceedings
.
31 The Contempt Case is
, ,
accordingly disposed .
of
.
32 After pronouncement of the order
, learned counsel appearing for
/contemors
respondents requested to suspend the sentence to avail
the remedy of appeal
.
.33 In view ,
thereof the order of sentence is suspended till
.
30.6.2022

1 )(1967 1 An WR 129

2 )(1999 7 SCC569

3 )(1988 4 SCC 592

4 )(2012 4 SCC 307

5 )(2012 12 SCC599

6 )(2002 4 SCC21

7 )(2008 14 SCC 561

8 )(2014 7 SCC280

9 )(2014 14 SCC446

:
Disclaimer While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or ,
omission this /
casenote /
headnote /
judgment /
act /
rule
/
requiation /
circular nocirication is deing circulate on ine condition and understanding inat ine pudisner would not De

lIable in any manner by reason or any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice

rendered or accented on the basis of this /

casenote /
headnote /
judament /
act /
rule /
regulation /
circular .
notification All

disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts

, tribunals and forums at Lucknow .
only The authenticity of
this cext must de verted from are original .
source