Supreme Court: Police aid should not be provided for execution of decree without order of court

Order 21 Rule 25 of the CPC provides for endorsement by

the officer entrusted with the execution that if he is unable to

execute the process, the court shall examine the reasons for the

alleged inability and pass appropriate orders. No report was

submitted by the bailiff asking for police assistance in execution

for reasons specified. Likewise, there is no report under Order 21

Rule 35(3) CPC requesting for police assistance for effectuating

delivery of possession. There is no material if the application

before the Tehsildar was made by the bailiff or the decree holder.

Be that as it may, we are constrained to hold that the procedure

adopted by the police with regard to the delivery of possession by

resorting to a manner outside the procedure of the court, using

the court orders as an umbrella was wholly unwarranted. The

executive authorities were completely unjustified in their over

enthusiasm without asking for proper court orders regarding

police assistance despite the fact that they were fully aware that

possession was to be delivered in pursuance of a court order.

NONREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).8175 OF 2019

OM PARKASH  Vs AMAR SINGH

NAVIN SINHA, J.
Dated:October 21, 2019.

Print Page

Whether party becomes liable for contempt of court if he commits breach of undertaking given to court?

As pointed out by Oswald on Contempt of Court, an undertaking entered into or given to the Court by a party or his counsel or solicitor is equivalent to and has the effect of an order of the Court. So far as any infringement thereof may be made the subject of an application to the Court to punish for its breach. Therefore, when an undertaking is given by a party to the Court, it becomes an order of the Court and a particular mode is prescribed for enforcing that particular order. That mode is that proceedings for contempt can be taken out for the enforcement of that order. Therefore, if we find in this case that an undertaking was given by the party to the Court resulting in that undertaking becoming an order of the Court, then it would be open to the party aggrieved by the non-compliance with the order to come to Court and ask for committal of the party in default.

Bombay High Court

Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka And ... vs Kapurchand Ltd. on 9 February, 1950

Equivalent citations: AIR 1950 Bom 336, (1950) 52 BOMLR 363, ILR 1951 Bom 125

Bench: Chagla, Gajendragadkar

Print Page

Whether a person can be held guilty for misappropriation if he is acting in accordance with order passed by high court?

On this factual backdrop it is really difficult to see as to how the two accused persons who were the officers of the Reserve Bank and were acting under the orders of the High Court could be said to have committed an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. This was a very tricky situation in which the Reserve Bank and more particularly, the accused persons who were the officers thereof were caught in without there being any role on their part. These officers have nothing to do with the marital discord between the complainant and his wife. They had also nothing to do with the liability of the complainant to pay maintenance to his wife. The Reserve Bank seems to have been dragged in on account of the order passed by the High Court, initially attached the salary which was also later on clarified by the High Court by the subsequent order that it was not an attachment, however, all the same the High Court directed the Reserve Bank to send the maintenance amount by money order. This order continued. It has come on record that the dispute between the complainant and his wife ultimately came to an end by the final judgment passed in F.A. No. 43 of 2002 on 14th February, 2003, wherein the liability of the petitioner was found at Rs. 3000/- per month by way of permanent alimony. It is to be remembered that this was precisely the amount by way of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the order dated 4th September, 2001, passed by the Division Bench seems to have been continued in the final judgment. If this was so and if there was again an order passed by the Division Bench on 18th June, 2004 in the very same F. A. No. 43 of 2002 which already stood disposed of by the final judgment dated 14th February, 2003 directing the Reserve Bank to make the payment of Rs. 3000/-per month from the salary of the complainant, it was very natural on the part of the Reserve Bank and more particularly the accused persons who were its officers to expect a further order from the High Court to be able to stop the payment. They were after all acting under the orders of the High Court and they were quite justified in feeling bound by the direction given in the last order dated 18th June, 2004.

Calcutta High Court

Arun Kumar Mohanti vs Probhat Kumar Chakravorty on 5 April, 2005

Equivalent citations: (2005) 3 CALLT 154 HC, 2005 (2) CHN 561, II (2005) DMC 203

Bench: V Sirpurkar

Print Page