BALWANT SINGH Vs. NAFE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case where the respondent-contemner at the first stage of hearing admitted violation of the order of the Court and has prayed for a lenient view and acceptance of unconditional apology tendered on his behalf. The respondent who is present in Court has submitted that he is an illiterate person and was not made to understand by his learned counsel that creating of mortgage in favour of the bank would also tantamount to violation of the order of injunction passed in RSA 934, 984 of 1994 dated 4.5.1994. The contemner submits that be by mistake and in bona fide error and belief mortgaged the property only for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- to the bank, while the value of the land is Rs. 15 lacs. The respondent-contemner further submits that he had no intention to violate the order of the Court, but mortgaged the property under bona fide mistaken belief of fact and law both. He has shown repentance over the act done by him and has given assurance to the Court that in future he would not repeat any such act. He has further submitted that he would get the mortgaged property redeemed from the bank on or before 30.11.1996 without fail and would inform the Court of such action.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner admits that the value of the land in any case is more than Rs. 10 lacs and he had not claimed absolute ownership over the land but at best he will be co-sharer in the property. The facts as aforesaid certainly constitute contempt because of the order of injunction was in not way partial or permitted the respondent to mortgage any part of the property in question.

(3.) THE jurisdiction of the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is regulated by well recognised and sound principles of law. The Court has a vide discretion to exercise, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case, to hold, whether the contemer-respondent should be punished for committing contempt of Court or the apology tendered on his behalf should be accepted. But where the Court intends to accept the apology tendered by the contemner, it has to be satisfied that such an apology is bona fide and is sincere repentance of his deed or omission. The Supreme Court in this regard made certain observations in the case of S. Mulgaokar, 1978(3) SCC 339 as under: