TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 impossib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that he would return the documents on an undertaking to produce them whenever directed . The mother of the Appellant, Late Sharda Bai was a litigant in the afore-stated case, which had been disposed of in 1981. Some of the documents, which had been produced by the mother of the Appellant in the said case, were required by her and as she was unable to remain present before the Court due to her old age, she had requested the Appellant to make an application on her behalf, for return of the documents and, accordingly, the Appellant had made an application to the Court for return of the documents, which had been produced by Late Sharda Bai, the mother of the Appellant. While returning the documents, the Appellant was asked to give an underta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vanished . Thus, the said documents were neither with the Appellant nor were they available at that time. According to the Appellant, the case in which the said documents were required, was filed by the relatives of the Appellant and they had filed an application for production of the said documents to pressurise the Appellant in their family affairs. 6. Thus, 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. 7. As the matter was taken up seriously by the Court concerned, reference was made for initiating contempt proceedings against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process of a court or should have willfully committed breach of an undertaking given to a court. 12. 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. In our opinion, after knowing the above stated facts, the court should not have directed the Appellant to produce the documents because it was impossible for the Appellant to produce the docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
