Case Analysis: Stay Order Violation and Contempt of Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2025 INSC 325

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.13875 OF 2021)

SMT. LAVANYA C & ANR. VERSUS -VITTAL GURUDAS PAI

SINCE DESEASED BY LRS.

Date; 5.3.2025

Case Analysis: Stay Order Violation and Contempt of Court

Facts of the Case:

The case of Smt. Lavanya C. & Anr. vs. Vittal Gurudas Pai & Ors. arose from a dispute over a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) signed on April 30, 2004, for constructing residential apartments. The project was to be completed within 24 months but was delayed. The plaintiffs (respondents in this appeal) filed Original Suit No. 4191 of 2007 seeking cancellation of the JDA.

During the proceedings, the defendants (appellants) gave an undertaking on July 11, 2007, and August 13, 2007, before the trial court, stating that they would not alienate the suit property. However, despite this undertaking, they allegedly sold parts of the property through various sale deeds.

The plaintiffs filed an Interlocutory Application No. 3 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, alleging contempt for violating the undertaking.

Legal Provisions Involved:

1. Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC – Allows courts to grant temporary injunctions to prevent parties from altering the status quo of a property in dispute.
2. Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC – Empowers courts to punish parties for violating injunction orders or undertakings given before the court.
3. Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC – Provides for appeals against orders granting or refusing injunctions.
4. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Deals with punishment for disobedience of court orders.

Trial Court's Decision:

• The Trial Court dismissed the contempt application on August 2, 2013, citing lack of evidence that the defendants willfully violated the undertaking.
• The court also noted ambiguity in the property description and gave the defendants the benefit of doubt.

High Court’s Decision:

• The plaintiffs appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.
• The High Court overturned the Trial Court's order and found the defendants guilty of contempt.
• It sentenced one of the contemnors (Appellant No. 2) to three months of civil imprisonment and attached the property for one year.
• The contemnors were also ordered to pay ₹10 lakhs as compensation.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment:

1. Validity of Contempt Proceedings:
   • The Supreme Court reaffirmed that violating an undertaking to the court constitutes contempt (Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 59).
   • Even if an injunction order is later set aside, the initial violation does not get erased.
2. Undertaking Given by an Advocate:
   • The appellants argued that their advocate gave the undertaking without authorization.
   • The Court rejected this argument, citing that an advocate’s statement binds the client unless contested immediately (Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, (2015) 7 SCC 373).
3. Punishment Modification:
   • Considering the age and health of one of the contemnors (now 68 years old), the three-month imprisonment was waived.
   • The compensation was increased from ₹10 lakhs to ₹13 lakhs with 6% interest from August 2, 2013.

• Giving an undertaking to the court is equivalent to an order of injunction—any violation invites contempt proceedings.
• Injunction orders remain valid until formally vacated by a court—violation before vacation can lead to punishment.
• An advocate’s statements in court are binding unless the client objects immediately.
• Courts consider both punishment and proportionality—factors like age and health may lead to sentence modifications.

This case underscores the sanctity of court orders and the legal consequences of disobedience.

Link of Judgement ; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54909522/

#supremecourtjudgement #phenixbaylegalblogs #stayordercontempt #smt lavanya c & anr versus vittal gurudas pai since deseased by lrs