2016 (9) TMI 1491 - SC - Indian Laws

Requirement to produce the documents - it was the case of the Appellant before the Court that it was impossible for him to return the documents handed over to him as the said documents were handed over by him to the rightful owner of the documents and the documents were also destroyed - Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Held that - In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the documents had been handed over by the Appellant to his mother Late Sharda Bai who was the rightful owner of the said documents and the said fact was admitted by his mother by filing an affidavit in another legal proceedings. Subsequently the said documents had been destroyed because of the flood and therefore it was impossible for the Appellant to return the same to the Court. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and its perusal makes it very clear that so as to hold somebody guilty of contempt of court the concerned person must have willfully disobeyed any judgment decree direction order writ or any other process of a court or should have willfully committed breach of an undertaking given to a court. In the instant case from the facts stated hereinabove it is crystal clear that the Appellant had no intention of committing breach of the undertaking given to the court. It was physically impossible for the Appellant to produce the documents as the documents had already been given by him to his mother on whose behalf he had collected the same from the court and the said documents had been subsequently destroyed because of a natural calamity - It is deplorable that the Appellant has been held guilty and has also undergone the sentence imposed by the High Court. We hold that the Appellant was not guilty of committing contempt of court as there was no willful breach of the undertaking given to the court - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Contempt of court - Willful breach of undertaking

Analysis:
The appellant was found guilty of contempt of court by the High Court for failing to return certain documents as per an undertaking given earlier. The appellant had given an undertaking to produce the documents whenever directed by the court. However, the documents were handed over to the appellant's mother, who was the rightful owner, and subsequently destroyed due to a natural calamity. The High Court held the appellant in contempt despite the physical impossibility of returning the documents. The Supreme Court analyzed the case and found that there was no willful breach of the undertaking by the appellant.

The Supreme Court highlighted that for a person to be held guilty of contempt of court, there must be willful disobedience to a court order or willful breach of an undertaking given to the court. In this case, the appellant did not have any intention of breaching the undertaking. The court acknowledged that it was impossible for the appellant to produce the documents as they had been destroyed due to a natural calamity. Therefore, directing the appellant to produce something that was physically impossible was deemed unfair, and failure to do so should not result in contempt of court.

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant was wrongly held guilty of contempt by the High Court. The court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that there was no willful breach of the undertaking given to the court. The appellant had already undergone the sentence imposed by the High Court, and no costs were awarded in the appeal.