Disobedience of a court undertaking not to alienate property. The appellants, Smt. Lavanya C &Anr., were found guilty of contempt of court by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru for violating an undertaking given by their counsel in a Joint Development Agreement suit. The Supreme Court reviews the High Court’s decision, affirming the finding of contempt while modifying the imposed sentence, notably removing the civil prison confinement but increasing the monetary compensation and upholding the property attachment. The judgment also elaborates on the fiduciary relationship between an advocate and client, emphasizing that an advocate cannot provide undertakings to the court without their client’s explicit authorization.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39 Rule 2A – Contempt of Court – Disobeying undertaking given to Court – Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Court below, holding the appellants herein not guilty of wilful disobedience of their undertaking given to the Court? – Appellants have cast certain aspersions on their counsel to the effect that he, allegedly, gave the undertaking, germane to the instant controversy, without express authorization – The undertaking, subject matter of controversy, was given in July 2007 and the miscellaneous application was filed in the year 2011, i.e., after a period of four and a half years.
Had the situation been that the said undertaking was without requisite authority, the clients were perfectly within their rights to seek discharge of that order, however, no such step was taken – The same undertaking was re-emphasized a month later, on 13th August 2007 and was later made into an order of the Court which was extended from time to time – Alienation of the subject matter property despite express orders of the Court entirely justify the stand taken by the High Court in punishing the appellants for contempt of Court.
Keeping in view the fact that at the time of filing of this appeal, the appellant No.1, who was the contemnor No.3 before the High Court, was 63 years of age and today must approximately be of 68 years of age, the impugned order modified to the extent that the three months confinement in civil prison shall stand deleted – The rest of the order regarding attachment of property remains undisturbed – Additionally, the amount of compensation payable by the appellants shall stand enhanced from a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.13 lakhs.
(Para 11, 14 and 15)
Lavanya C And Anr. V. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deceased By Lrs.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 325: (DoJ 05-03-2025)