Behl, Deveshi Madan and Gunjan Soni v. Amar Singh Bhalla

6. The contemnor/respondent no. 5 will remain present in Court on 21.12.2022. The concerned SHO will ensure that respondent no. 5 is present in Court tomorrow as well.”

10. It is to be noted that till date, there is no reply filed by the contemnor despite matter being taken up on numerous occasions.

11. When this court took up the said contempt petition for consideration on 21.12.2022, it was found that the contemnor did not appear and accordingly, fresh NBW was directed to be issued. The order dated 21.12.2022 reads as under:- “1. None appears for any of the respondents.

2. Issue Court Notice to Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel (Civil), GNCTD.

3. The respondent no. 5, who had appeared in the Court on 20.12.2022 after being served through the SHO of the area concerned, is again not present today.

4. Let respondent no. 5 be once again seiwed through the concerned SHO for 05.01.2023.” [7]

12. On 05.01.2023, this court took note of the fact that the NBW was not executed and accordingly, further opportunity was granted to the SHO to execute the same. On 02.02.2023 again, the NBW remained unexecuted. Details of some of the properties of the contemnor were noted and accordingly directions for attachment and sale of those properties were issued in terms of Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. The said order dated 02.02.2023 reads as under:- "1. On the last date, taking into account that the respondent no.l/Mr. Amar Singh Bhalla appeared to be deliberately avoiding to appear before this Court, Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against him with a direction to the SHO, Sangam Vihar, Delhi to Khera Garg, Agra, U.P. The Collector, Agra will send a report in this regard to this Court within a period of eight weeks to execute the same.

2. Today, Mr. Jawahar Raja. learned Additional Standing Counsel for Govt. of NOT of Delhi submits that the NBW against Mr. Amar Singh Bhalla could not be executed as despite repeated visits to his residence by police personnel, he was not found as it was reported by his Wife and son that he is no longer residing with them. He however submits that the mobile earlier being used by him, was found to be in the possession of his wife.

3. Even though the information given by the respondent's wife and son that they are not in touch with him seems to be incorrect, Mr Virmani, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that since the respondent no. 1 IS not traceable, the respondent no. 3 be directed to issue a recovery certificate and forward the same to the Collector, Agra for being executed by attachment of his property at Agra, details whereof, have been furnished by the respondent no. 1 himself in his affidavit of assets filed before this Court.

4. Taking into account that the amount payable under the Award still remains unpaid as also the fact that the respondent no. 1 had himself given the details of his property at Agra, the respondent no. 3 is directed to issue within 10 days, a recovery certificate as per Section 5 of the Recovery Revenue Act, 1890 and forward the same to the Collector, Agra with a direction to the Collector, Agra to take steps to execute the same by attachment and sale of the respondent's 1/3rd share in property being agricuitural land in Kh. nos. as Khatauni No.00283, Khasra Nos. 918/46, [8] 918/1 min, 918/45 and 922/80 (total area= 2.1900 hectare) situated in village Sonikhera, Pargana & Tehsil -Khera Garg, Agra, U.P. The Collector, Agra will send a report in this regard to this Court within a period of eight weeks.

5. In the meanwhile, it will also be open for the petitioner to contact the respondent's Bank, i.e., Oriental Bank of Commerce, Batra Hospital, Sangam Vihar Branch to obtain information about the amount, if any, lying in his bank account bearing no. 06292041007894. In case the petitioner contacts the Branch Manager for information in this regard,necessary cooperation will be extended to her.

6. Fresh NBWs be also issued against the respondent no.l and with a direction to the SHO, Sangam Vihar to execute the same before the next date.

7. List on 05.04.2023.

8. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Collector Agra and also be given to the petitioner under the signatures of the Court Master.”

13. It is also to be noted that the order of NBW remained unexecuted and accordingly, fresh NBW was issued. The matter was, thereafter, taken up for consideration on 05.04.2023. Again, it was noted that the NBW remained unexecuted. However, further time was granted for its execution. Order dated 05.04.2023 reads as under:- “1. The record shows that despite directions having been issued to the Collector, Agra on 02.02.2023, no report has been filed by the Collector, Agra. Let a reminder be sent to the Collector, Agra with a direction to forthwith comply with the directions already issued by this Court on 02.02.2023.

2. Mr. Jawahar Raja, who appears on behalf of the SHO, Sangam Vihar, Delhi submits that despite repeated efforts made by the police personnel, Mr. Amar Singh Bhalla is still not traceable. He assures the Court that steps are being taken to ascertain his whereabouts from his family members. [9]

3. Issue fresh NBWs, against Mr. Amar Singh Bhalla with a direction to the SHO, Sangam Vihar, Delhi to execute the same for 03.05.2023. A status report be also filed by the Joint Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Labour Department, i.e the respondent no. 3 clearly stating the steps taken for issuance of the recovery certificate.

4. At this stage, Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, learned Senior Advocate, Amicus Curiae appointed in the matter, submits that even though as per the police, the contemnor is not traceable, he and his family members are carrying out their transport business from the same residential address where Mr. Amar Singh Bhalla was residing. He, therefore, submits that if the Aadhaar card of Mr. Amar Singh Bhalla is suspended by UIDAI, it is quite possible that he may appear before this Court in terms of the earlier orders.

5. Mr. Abhishek Saket, who regularly appears on behalf of UIDAI is present in Court, is requested to enter appearance. He prays for and is granted time to obtain instructions in this regard.

6. List on 03.05.2023.”

14. On 03.05.2023, it was again noted that the warrant remained unexecuted. However, certain directions were issued with respect to the suspension of Aadhar Card of the contemnor and with respect to the property situated in Agra.

15. Since the warrant remained unexecuted, therefore, on 26.05.2023, this court directed that in case the warrant is not executed, the Commissioner, Delhi Police will have to examine the matter.

16. On 31.05.2023, the NBW was executed by the police and the contemnor was produced before this court.

17. The continuation of his custody till 01.06.2023 was directed and appropriate directions were given to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint a counsel on behalf of the contemnor.

18. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 01.06.2023, the contemnor again undertook that he would pay a sum of Rs.[2] lakhs to the [10] petitioner within a period of one week. He also undertook that he would pay the remaining principle amount of Rs.6,73,880/- to the petitioner in monthly installments of Rs.50,000/- commencing from July, 2023. He also assured that the monthly instalments would be paid on or before the 5th of every month. He also produced Mr.Hari Om, Mr.Sanjay and Mr.Hari Singh Pahadiya as his sureties.

19. In view of the undertaking and taking into consideration the sureties being produced by the contemnor, this court directed for the release of the said contemnor subject to compliance of the directions and undertaking recorded in the said order. For the sake of clarity, order dated 01.06.2023 reads as under:- “1. Mr.Jai Wadhwa, Advocate from the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee enters appearance for Mr. Amar Singh Bhalla, who has been produced in Court.

2. Mr. Bhalla undertakes to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner/Ms. Bala within one week. He further undertakes that the remaining principal sum of Rs.6,73,880/- will be paid by him in monthly instalments of Rs.50,000/- per month commencing from July, 2023 and assures the Court that this amount will be paid on or before 5th of every month. He further prays that after he pays the principal amount, this Court may, taking into account his financial position, appropriately reduce the rate of interest granted under the award. He, therefore, prays that he may be released from custody on the surety of Mr. Hariom, Mr.Sanjay and Mr.Hari Singh Pahadiya so as to enable him to make arrangements to make the payment to the petitioner.

3. Mr.Hariom, Mr.Sanjay and Mr.Hari Singh Pahadiya are present in Court and state that they will ensure that Mr.Bhalla appears in Court on the next date and on all dates as may be directed by this Court and also makes the payment in instalments as undertaken by him. They hand over copies of registration certificates of their respective vehicles being no. HR38AA4476, HR13P0820 and HR13R4573 respectively and submit that they are aware that their vehicles may be sold for liquidating the amount to [11] be paid to the petitioner. Copies of the three registration certificates of the aforesaid three vehicles are taken on record.

4. Mr. Rajeev K Virmani, the learned senior counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae assures the Court that the petitioner will abide by the orders as may be passed by this Court in respect of the rate of interest.

5. The aforesaid undertakings given by Mr. Bhalla and the three sureties are accepted. Mr. Bhalla is directed to be released from custody with a direction to him to report to the SHO, Sangam Vihar at 10:30 AM on every Monday and also to remain present before this Court on the next date.

6. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi as also to the concerned RTO Offices for compliance.

7. List on 25.07.2023.

8. A copy is this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.”

20. On 25.07.2023, when the matter was taken up in the first round, it was noted that nothing was paid to the petitioner. However, when the matter was kept in the pass-over, the contemnor arranged for a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash and the said amount was paid to the petitioner. He also undertook that a sum of Rs.30,000/- would be deposited online in the petitioner's bank account. It is, thus, seen that even the undertaking recorded on 25.07.2023 was not obeyed and except a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash and Rs.10,000/- via UPI, no further amount was paid to the petitioner by the contemnor.

21. Vide order dated 25.07.2023, the following observations were made:- “1.0 As per order dated 01.06.2023, Mr. Amar Singh, the respondent had undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner/Ms. Bala within one week. He further undertook to pay the remaining principal sum of Rs.6,73,880/- in monthly instalments of Rs.50,000/- per month commencing from July, 2023 and assured the Court that this amount will be paid on or before 5th of every month. However, no amount has been paid despite undertaking. Today, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is making efforts to arrange further funds. This court remains [12] unimpressed by the submissions made without any plausible explanation taking into account, the backdrop of the facts of this case.

2.0 Pass-over is sought to make arrangement for payment of Rs.50,000/today.

3.0 Passed-over for 02:30 p.m. At 03:15 p.m.

4.0 Ld. counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent could arrange a sum of Rs.20,000/- which has been paid to the petitioner in cash, which she confirms.

5.0. It is undertaken by the respondent that balance amount of Rs.30,000/shall deposited online in the petitioner‟s bank account, details of which he has.

6.0 Ld. counsel for the respondent undertakes that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.[2] lacs by 25.08.2023 and the instalment of Rs. 50,000/- for the month of August, 23, shall be paid by 05.08.2023.

6.0 List on 14.09.2023.”

22. Today, when the matter is called out, the contemnor submits that he is not in a position to arrange for the amount as has been undertaken by him. This court is shocked and surprised by the statement that has been made by the contemnor. The contemnor, not only once but on numerous occasions, had undertaken that he would comply with the directions passed by this court and would make the entire payment as has been awarded to the petitioner. The contemnor is not disputing about his undertaking.

23. There is no reply filed by the contemnor, much less a satisfactory reply and no suitable answer has been given as to why the undertaking was given by him when he was not in a position to comply with the directions passed by this court. No efforts have been made to obey his undertaking, much less sincere efforts. He only says that he is the sole bread earning [13] member of his family. A natural corollary of the said statement follows that the contemnor must be doing some work to earn his livelihood. However, nothing is brought on record to satisy this court about the reasons for noncompliance of his own undertaking.

24. This court is of the considered opinion that the contemnor has not only wilfully disobeyed the directions passed by this court but has also wilfully disobeyed his own undertaking.

25. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter as 'Act of 1971') defines civil contempt. The same reads as under:- "2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— ….. (b) “civil contempt” 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;"

26. Punishment for contempt of court is prescribed under Section 12 of the Act of 1971. The same reads as under:- “12. Punishment for contempt of court.— (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in subsection (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. [14] (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. (4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer. Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-sections (4) and (5),— (a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.”

27. At this juncture, this court finds it appropriate to traverse through various judicial pronouncements pertaining to the jurisprudence of civil contempt. [15]

28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, very recently, in the case of Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (Deceased) rep. by Lrs. and Others[1], while relying upon a catena of judgments dealing with the aspect of necessary ingredients to establish contempt of court, has held as under: “40. The object of the discipline enforced by the court in case of contempt of court is not to vindicate the dignity of the court or the person of the Judge, but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice.

41. Any interference with the course of justice is an affront to the majesty of law and the conduct of interference is punishable as contempt of court. Public interest demands that there should be no interference with the judicial process, and the effect of the judicial decision should not be pre-empted or circumvented. (Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd., (1988) 4 SCC 592).

42. If a party, who is fully in the know of the judgment/order of the Court, is conscious and aware of the consequences and implications of the order of the Court, acts in violation thereof, it must be held that disobedience is wilful. To establish contempt of court, it is sufficient to prove that the conduct was wilful, and that the contemnor knew of all the facts which made it a breach of the undertaking.

43. The following conditions must be satisfied before a person can be held to have committed civil contempt: (i) there must be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court; (ii) there must be disobedience to such judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court; and (iii) such disobedience of the judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court must be wilful. [Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai, (2008) 14 SCC 561] ***

48. To hold a person guilty of civil contempt, “wilful disobedience” is an indispensable requirement. Whether the conduct of contemnor is deliberate and wilful can be considered by assessing the material on record and attendant circumstances.” [Emphasis supplied]

29. It is palpably observed that for establishing contempt, there must be a

[16] disobedience to the judgment, decree, order or other proess of a court. In the case of Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj[2], while elucidating upon the meaning of the expression ‘wilful disobedience’ for the purpose of establishing guilt for contempt of court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:— “12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is “wilful”. The word “wilful” introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. “Wilful” means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful act does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely”. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. “Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct.”

30. With respect to the undertaking given by a person in a pending proceeding based upon which the court decides upon a particular course of action, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwantbhai Somabhai (supra) has held as under:

73. An undertaking or an assurance given by a lawyer based upon which the court decides upon a particular course of action would definitely fall within the confines of “undertaking” as stipulated under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1971 and the breach of which would constitute “civil contempt”. As held in

[17] and it will be no answer that he did not think that he was giving it or that he was misunderstood. The breach of an undertaking given to a court by a person in a pending proceeding on the faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action is misconduct amounting to contempt.

31. It is pertinent to highlight the discussion in the case of Suman Chadha v. Central Bank of India[3], regarding the context in which an undertaking given by a party should be perused. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision read as under: “25. It is true that an undertaking given by a party should be seen in the context in which it was made and (i) the benefits that accrued to the undertaking party; and (ii) the detriment/injury suffered by the counter party. It is also true that normally the question whether a party is guilty of contempt is to be seen in the specific context of the disobedience and the wilful nature of the same and not on the basis of the conduct subsequent thereto. While it is open to the court to see whether the subsequent conduct of the alleged contemnor would tantamount to an aggravation of the contempt already committed, the very determination of an act of contempt cannot simply be based upon the subsequent conduct.

26. But the subsequent conduct of the party may throw light upon one important aspect namely whether it was just the inability of the party to honour the commitment or it was part of a larger design to hoodwink the court.”

32. In Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora[4], the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a categorical stand that even if parties have not filed an undertaking before the court but if the court was induced to sanction a particular course of action or inaction on the representation made by a party and the court ultimately finds that the party never intended to act on the said representation or such representation was false, the party would be guilty of committing contempt. Paragraph no. 12 of the said decision reads as under: AIR 2021 SC 3709

[18] “12. Law is well settled that if any party gives an undertaking to the court to vacate the premises from which he is liable to be evicted under the orders of the court and there is a clear and deliberate breach thereof it amounts to civil contempt but since, in the present case, the respondent did not file any undertaking as envisaged in the order of this Court the question of his being punished for breach thereof does not arise. However, in our considered view even in a case where no such undertaking is given, a party to a litigation may be held liable for such contempt if the court is induced to sanction a particular course of action or inaction on the basis of the representation of such a party and the court ultimately finds that the party never intended to act on such representation or such representation was false. In other words, if on the representation of the respondent herein the Court was persuaded to pass the order dated 5-10-1995 extending the time for vacation of the suit premises, he may be held guilty of contempt of court, notwithstanding nonfurnishing of the undertaking, if it is found that the representation was false and the respondent never intended to act upon it. …”

33. A bare perusal of the facts of the present case would indicate that the contemnor has flagrantly flouted his own undertakings on numerous occasions. It is seen that the contemnor, on 12.10.2022, gave an undertaking to the court that he would submit the entire amount alongwith the interest within two months. However, the same was never done.

34. Subsequently, on 01.06.2023, for the second time, the contemnor undertook that he would pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the petitioner in a week and the remaining amount would be paid in instalments. This court, relying on the undertaking given by the contemnor, directed for the release of the said contemnor vide order dated 01.06.2023. However, to the utter surprise of this court, the contemnor blatantly disobeyed his own assurance given to the court in the form of an undertaking.

35. It can also be seen that the contemnor, during the coure of hearing on 25.07.2023, once again undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 in cash and Rs. 30,000 via UPI. However, even the said fraction of the total sum has not [19] been paid in full, till date.

36. It is, thus, observed that the contemnor wilfully disobeyed his own undertakings, giving several false assurances on various occasions to the court. It is also to be noted that because of the contemnor's undertaking only, this court had taken a particular view to release the contemnor from the jail. Had the same not been done, the court would have proceeded with the matter at that stage itself.

37. This court is of the opinion that one cannot be allowed to trounce the majesty of law and pollute the streams of justice by brazenly engaging in contumacious conduct with an aim of hoodwinking the judicial system. The edifice of a vibrant constitutional democracy rests on the pillars of rule of law, which needs to be preserved with full vigour to maintain the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

38. Therefore, an unbridled interference with the administration of justice and wilful disregad for the judicial proceedings has to be checked on the anvil of contempt jurisprudence, lest it undermines the dignity of the judiciary in the eyes of the common man.

39. Having considered the entire sequence of facts and repeated undertakings being wilfully breached by the contemnor, this court finds that this is a fit case where the contemnor should be held guilty for commission of the contempt under the provisions of the Act of 1971. Accordingly, the contemnor is found guilty of committing the contempt of this court for wilfully disobeying his undertakings.

40. This court would now consider this matter for passing an appropriate order on the question of sentence. The case is adjourned till 15.09.2023. However, for the reasons recorded in the order, the contemnor is sent to [20] judicial custody to be produced on 15.09.2023. Proceedings dated 15.09.2023

41. The contemnor is produced before the court.

42. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contemnor submits that the contemnor is a first time offender and he had never intended to disobey the undertaking given before this court. It is only on account of the circumstances that he was not able to abide by the undertaking. He also submits that the contemnor has no means to pay the amount to the petitioner as he is the sole bread earner in his family; and therefore, a lenient view should be taken while awarding the punishment to the contemnor.

43. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that in the instant case, it is not only once but at least for three occasions, the contemnor has violated the undertaking given before this court.

44. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the contemnor actively participated in the MCD election of the year 2022. He also submits that his active participation can be seen from various advertisement material, including posters, some of them have been referred during the course of hearing. He also submits that the contemnor was operating a transport business in the name of M/s Rahul Dampher & Tractor Services. He further submits that the contemnor owns immovable properties at Agra. The details of those properties have already been taken note of in earlier proceedings.

45. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the contemnor did not even make an endeavour to show his bonafides while making any payment of substantial amount to the petitioner. He further submits that on various dates, this court has already [21] taken a lenient view giving consideration to the fact that the petitioner in the instant case is only interested in getting her money; and accordingly, sufficient time was given to the contemnor to make the payment of the dues which were undertaken by the contemnor before this court.

46. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and I have also given a thoughtful consideration to various aspects involved in the instant case.

47. Even at this stage, had the contemnor offered any reasonable amount to the petitioner, this court would have been inclined to defer the factum of awarding punishment. Unfortunately, the contemnor has not even made miniscule of efforts to abide by his own undertakings and pay any reasonable sum to purge the contempt. Therefore, this court is duty bound to ensure that necessary consequences follow. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar[5], has held that the power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system and the same is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice.

48. Under the facts of the instant case, for the purpose of awarding punishment, the sequence of events will have to be properly appreciated. This court has already noted the same not only once, but on numerous occasions, that the opportunity was extended to the contemnor to obey the undertaking given before this court.

49. It appears that the contemnor has not made even a slightest of endeavour to obey the undertaking given to the court. He has brazenly violated the directions and the undertakings. It also appears that he does not have any respect for the court of law.

[22]

50. This court has taken note of the fact that the mere imposition of the fine would neither serve the purpose of maintaining the dignity of this court nor would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present matter. Even in these contempt proceedings, this court had to issue NBW several times to ensure the presence of the contemnor as he was evading appearance. Therefore, this court is constrained to impose the maximum sentence as the contemnor has repeatedly breached his own undertakings.

51. Considering the facts of the instant case and the rule of law laid down in the foregoing decisions, it is deemed appropriate to punish the contemnor with simple imprisonment for a term of six months, commencing from 14.09.2023.

52. Let the contemnor be sent to the concerned prison to undergo his remaining sentence as imposed by this order.

53. For further consideration, list this case on 05.02.2024 along with W.P.(C) 8633/2019.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2023MJ/nc/rs/shs