Mere Averment Or Bald Allegations Not Sufficient To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against An Individual: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere averment or a bald allegation is not sufficient to initiate contempt proceedings or issuance of show cause notice against a person. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the disobedience must be “wilful and beyond a casual or accidental genuine inability” to comply with the terms of the judicial order. “Moreover, mere unintentional disobedience...
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere averment or a bald allegation is not sufficient to initiate contempt proceedings or issuance of show cause notice against a person.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the disobedience must be “wilful and beyond a casual or accidental genuine inability” to comply with the terms of the judicial order.
“Moreover, mere unintentional disobedience is not enough, an absence of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct,” the court said.
The court made the observations while dismissing an application filed by defendants in a civil suit arising out of a property dispute seeking contempt action against plaintiff’s power of attorney holder for disobeying court’s order passed on October 04, 2013.
It was the defendants’ case that the power of attorney holder, the alleged contemnor- wilfully, deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the order.
It was submitted that a statement was made by plaintiff’s lawyer before a predecessor bench that the Notice Board in the suit property would be removed and that the Power of Attorney holder was bound by the statement. However, the defendants apprehended that the Power of Attorney holder was looking for prospective buyers and had entered into transactions for the sale of the suit property on behalf of the deceased plaintiff.
Dismissing the application, the court took of the reply of the Power of Attorney holder to the defendants’ application categorically denying the averments made by them.
“The non-applicant stated that he has neither constructed any office on the suit property nor has occupied the same or any part thereof. The said statement of the alleged contemnor/non-applicant is substantiated by the Report made by the Local Commissioner appointed to look into the matter at hand,” the court said.
Perusing the report, the court said that the Local Commissioner made the statement after inspection of the site and found that there were no occupants at the site except for the guards.
“There is no observation in the Report which suggests that the alleged contemnor/non- applicant was occupying the suit property or any part/portion thereof. Hence, the allegations made on behalf of the applicants stand defeated,” the court said.
It added that the defendants failed to show that the the Power of Attorney holder had wilfully disobeyed the order of the Predecessor Bench.
“In light of the facts, circumstances, submissions made on behalf of the parties, the contents of the Report of the Local Commissioner, the averments made in the application and arguments in the reply as well as the precedents on what constitutes "wilful disobedience" of an order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any cogent reasons to allow the instant application as the applicants have failed to substantiate and establish their averments. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed,” the court said.
Title: SMT. ASHA GUPTA v. SHRI SANDEEP GUPTA AND OTHERS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 376