"We Are Responsible For Increasing Court's Burden By Accepting Undertakings That Are Followed By Contempt Pleas":Supreme Court
"When we allow a party to furnish an undertaking, in most cases it is followed by a contempt petition. This way we have hundreds of contempt petitions before us. We are increasing litigation in the Supreme Court ", noted Justice DY Chandrachud on Thursday. The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandachud and M. R. Shah was considering a SLP arising out of the orders of the Karnataka High Court by...
"When we allow a party to furnish an undertaking, in most cases it is followed by a contempt petition. This way we have hundreds of contempt petitions before us. We are increasing litigation in the Supreme Court ", noted Justice DY Chandrachud on Thursday.
The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandachud and M. R. Shah was considering a SLP arising out of the orders of the Karnataka High Court by which the court had first dismissed the revision petition against an order of eviction, then also the review of this decision, but had acceded to the petitioner-tenant's request for grant of additional time to vacate.
The landlord-respondent had begun Execution proceedings and a delivery warrant had come to be issued. "Given the COVID-19 restrictions and the consequential difficulties for everyone, unquestionably the petitioner would also be put to similar difficulties. Therefore, the petitioners would have been entitled to some reasonable time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the subject premises. If the petitioner is granted time till the end of February 2021, the petitioner would have 10 months from the order (dismissing the revision petitions)", the High Court had noted in the review plea, confirming the decision in the revision petition.
"Sometimes, we extend the time to vacate by six months or one year. But these are matters which have been pending in the lower courts for as many as 15 years and even two decades! Why should we extend this time?", commented Justice Chandrachud.
It perturbed the bench that while one party furnishes an undertaking to vacate the premises within a specific period in pursuance of the order of the court, the other party, in most cases, is compelled to again move the court in a contempt plea on account of a violation of the undertaking.
"We are responsible for increasing the burden of the Supreme Court ", concurred Justice Shah.
"And in some cases, the decree for vacation is passed on the grounds of bonafide requirement", added Justice Shah.
The bench ultimately dismissed the petition.