9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts: M.C. Shah, M.V. Goswami, Advs. JUDGMENT M. Hameedullah Beg, 1. This is an appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts' Act, 1971. The defendant appellant was convicted by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat for having deliberately violated an order secured from the High Court on 22 January, 1973, upon undertakings given to it. The very first term of the order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. There is nothing in the conditions of the undertaking to imply that it was merely a consent order passed upon the agreement between the parties to which the order of the court had been superadded. The order incorporated express undertakings to the Court although these may have induced the plaintiff to agree to the passing of the order in the form which it was passed instead of pressing for an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impossible position that it was a mere agreement between the parties to which an order of the court had been appended. On this flimsy and unsustainable ground, an argument put forward before us was that there was no breach of any undertaking. The High Court found that express undertakings had been violated. We have no hesitation whatever in holding that the High Court's finding is correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en passed but for the undertakings. The High Court rightly observed that it had no option except to convict the appellant and to sentence him to three months imprisonment in civil jail. 5. Before parting with this case we may refer to Halsbury's Law of England-Fourth Edn. vol. 9. page 42 (paragraph 71) where, after citing Dashyoodd v. Dashood (1) for the proposition that, when a party fails t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
