Contempt Of Court Excludes Negligent Or Thoughtless Actions, Willful Conduct Requires Evil Motive Of Contemnor: Delhi High Court

The Court stated that a 'willful' act introduces a mental element which requires looking into the mind of a contemnor by determining his actions. It observed that contempt cannot be ordered unless it involves a degree of default or miscount.

“The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished.”

Noting that contempt excludes negligent action, Justice Dharmesh Sharma remarked “It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely”. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily.”

Background:

The petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for the wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 30.05.2018, passed by the District Court/Executing Court. In this order, the Executing Court had restrained the respondent from making payment of Rs. 10 lakhs to one Jitender Oberoi till further directions of the court.

The petitioner, Rajiv Oberoi and his brother Jitender Oberoi had a dispute over a joint property. The dispute was resolved through mediation and reached a settlement, according to which Jitender was required to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioner. Since he failed to pay the amount, the petitioner filed an execution petition before the District/Execution Court.

During the proceedings, Jitender Oberoi handed over possession of the first floor of the disputed property to the respondent and respondent agreed to pay Rs. 25 lakhs to him.

As the respondent had already paid 10 lakhs to Jitender, the Executing Court on 30.05.2018 restrained the respondent from making any further payment to Jitender. Despite the Court's order, the respondent made 3 payments of Rs. 5 lakhs to Jitender. The petitioner thus filed the present petition.

The High Court noted that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, envisages civil contempt which should demonstrate a 'wilful' disobedience of a court's order. It referred to the Supreme Court case of U.N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Assn. (2022), where it was noted for contempt cases, there must be due knowledge of the court's order and that the disobedience of the order must be deliberate and intentional.

In the present case, the Court noted that despite the court's order restraining the respondent made the payments to Jitender. It held that the acts of the respondent were deliberate and committed fully knowing the consequences.

“The payment of such amount made by the respondent to Sh. Jitender Oberoi cannot be said to be casual, accidental, involuntary or negligent action. The act committed was fully deliberate and fully knowing the consequences, and therefore, this Court holds the respondent guilty of committing contempt of the order of this Court dated 30.05.2018.”

The Court thus held the respondent to be guilty of contempt. It directed the respondent to appear before the Court physically, for hearing the quantum of sentence to be awarded to him.

Case title: Rajiv Oberoi vs. Rajesh Gupta (CONT. CAS (C) 488/2019)