SWARAN SINGH Vs. BHAGWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22. 8. 1986 convicting the appellant under Section 12 of the Act and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

(2.) THE brief facts:- Smt. Bhagwanti (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was transferred area situated at Jalandhar under the orders of the Settlement Officer (Urban) vide order dated 24. 5. 1969. The appellant challenged the transfer in favour of the petitioner. The authorised Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 27. 5. 1993 cancelled the transfer in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order of the Authorised Settlement Commissioner who set aside the order of the Authorised Settlement Commissioner and restored the transfer in favour of the petitioner. The appellant challenged the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in a revision under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 before the Financial Commissioner Revenue ). The same Was disposed of observing thus:

(3.) WE do not thing it proper to go into the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the construction made by the appellant was not envisaged under order the order passed in Civil Miscellaneous No. 2215 on 17. 9. 1985. In our view the order reproduced (supra) will not constitute an undertaking given by the appellant in court. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines Civil Contempt. It means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. A bare reading of the definition will suggest that the term "undertaking given to the court" would apply to only cases where the undertaking is given in writing to the court or where the court in its order specifies that in view of the undertaking it passed a certain order. In the instant case the graveman of the charge against the appellant is that he has committed a serious breach of the undertaking given to the court. We have not been referred to any undertaking given by the appellant to the court. Any person appearing before the Court can give an undertaking in two ways; (i) that he filed an application or an affidavit clearly setting out the undertaking given by him to Court, or (2) by a clear and express oral undertaking given by the contemnor and incorporated by the court in its order. If any of these conditions are satisfied then a wilful breach of the undertaking would doubtless amount to an offence under the Act. The learned Single Judge has construed the consent order as an implied undertaking given by the appellant. There is a clear cut distinction between a compromise arrived at between the parties or a consent order passed by the court at the instance of the parties and a clear and categorical undertaking given by any of the parties. In the former case, if there is violation of the compromise or the order, no question of contempt of court arises. In Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin,1, A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1528, dealing with the disobedience of the compromise decree or consent order held that it did not amount to contempt and observed thus: