Rehan Khan
The Supreme Court of India on 5th March 2025 observed that a lawyer must respect the client’s right to make decisions and any undertaking give to the court cannot be without their requisite authority in the case of Smt Lavanya C. & Anr. v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deceased By LRS. & Ors. A Division-Bench comprising of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol heard the present matter in which the Appellants i.e., Respondents before the Trial Court were found guilty of breach of their own undertaking.
The Appellants before the Apex Court claimed that the undertaking before the Trial Court was given without their express authorization. The Court emphasized that the lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature. Further, the Court refused to accept the claim of the Appellants as it found that no steps were taken by them to obtain discharge from the order recording their undertaking. The Court, thus, upheld the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which held the Appellants guilty of contempt of court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for breach of their undertaking. The dispute related to a property dispute. The Appellants had undertaken that they would not alienate the property in question.
Although the Trial Court ultimately dismissed the suit against them, they were charged with breach of undertaking during the pendency of the case. The question thus arose before the Court was whether they could still be punished for breach of undertaking. The Apex Court stated that the undertaking was given in 2007, but the original suit was dismissed in 2017. The application alleging breach of the undertaking was filed in 2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC and then dismissed by the Trial Court in 2013. In 2021, the High Court allowed the application in Appeal. The Appeal against the dismissal of the suit was also pending before the High Court then. Hence, the Apex Court held that the Appellants can still be punished for violating the interim injunction/undertaking granted to the Trial Court. “There is no question about the maintainability of the application before this Court. It is also true that the order challenged against which the impugned judgment was passed was passed during the pendency of the original suit and, therefore, it is also saved from that bar. Therefore, no error can be found on the exercise of such jurisdiction,” the Court said.
The Court further elaborated that the transfer of the subject property despite the clear orders of the Trial Court fully justifies the judgment of the High Court punishing the Appellants for Contempt of Court. Contempt powers are conferred with the objective of ensuring that the dignity and majesty of the law are always maintained, it observed. “When there is a clear violation of the order of the court, as in the present case, no mistake can be made in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction. Therefore, the judgment of the high court is affirmed,” the Court said.
Therefore, the said Appeal was partly allowed.
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com