The Delhi High Court in the case The State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd v. Sheela Abhay Lodha And Ors observed and has stated that the judicial system cannot function if the parties are permitted to resile from the undertaking given by them without any reasons.
The bench headed by Justice Jasmeet Singh in the case observed that there is solemnity and seriousness attached to court proceedings and parties cannot give undertakings without intending to honour them, or at least, they must make sincere and conscious efforts to comply with the same.
The court in the case stated that if undertaking are given and the parties are permitted to resile from the same without any reasons, the judicial system cannot function.
Therefore, the said court in contempt proceedings is to ensure that the dignity and majesty of the Court are maintained and any act and conduct of a party tantamount to lowering the dignity and majesty of the Court would amount to contempt.
The bench of Justice Singh in the case observed while dealing with the petition moved by an entity, State Trading Corporation of India Limited wherein seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against officials of an entity, Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., for violating an undertaking given before a Metropolitan Magistrate in August 2014 in a case registered under Section 138, Section 141, Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The official stated that as per the undertaking the company will repay Rs. 10 crores to Rs. 15 crores each and every continuing month to State Trading Corporation and would ensure that the total outstanding amount is liquidated within a period of 6 to 8 months. Thus, the contempt plea was filed, since the undertaking was not fulfilled.
The court in the case also found the whole time Director of Akshata Mercantile guilty of contempt, wherein the court observed that he was responsible for non-compliance of the undertakings for and on behalf of the entity before the MM.
The court stated that this court is of the view that the Respondent No. 2 is guilty of contempt and must be punished accordingly. Thus, the Respondent No. 2 is given 4 weeks’ time for filing the reply to show-cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt for non-compliance of the undertaking given before the learned MM on August 04, 2014.The court while keeping in view of the official’s conduct to not make the payment as agreed between the parties and recorded as per the judicial order.
The court in the case observed that the apology of the official could not be said to be bona fide.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the apology may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. However, the apology has to be seen with regards to the nature of disobedience and the pre and post circumstances surrounding the apology.
The counsel, Advocates Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Madhu Sudan Bhayana, Mr. Vikrant Rana appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave., Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, SPP represented the respondent.