Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 4th August 2025
PUNEET SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Mohit K. Mudgal, Ms. Harshita Verma, Mr. Manav Malhotra and Ms. Vinita Sejwal, Advs.
Ms. Mona K. Rajvanshi, Adv.
Through: Mr. Osama Suhail, Ms. Samama Suhail and Ms. Antara Chaudhury, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. A strange situation has arisen in the present case wherein the Contemnor/Appellant and his family members denied having filed a Special Leave petition (hereinafter ‘SLP’) before the Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 3rd July 2025, passed in this case.
3. The present appeal arises out of an order dated 13th May, 2025 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in Cont.Cas(C) 759/2024. The said contempt petition was filed by the Respondent – Ms. Nupur Pal, alleging wilful disobedience by the Appellant of order dated 13th July, 2023, whereby the parties had entered into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 13th July, 2023 and the Appellant had undertaken to refund a sum of Rs. 1.48 Crores along with interest of 7%. However, the Appellant had only paid a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs and the remaining amount remained unpaid. Hence, the contempt petition was filed by the Respondent.
4. Vide order dated 13th May, 2025, the Appellant has been convicted for contempt of Court and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of four months and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. The Appellant was granted an opportunity to purge the contempt by complying with the settlement agreement and order dated 13th July, 2023, with respect to payment of Rs. 1,56,06,934/- within a period of four weeks. The relevant portion of the order dated 13th May, 2025 reads as under:
28. The punishment, as aforesaid, would come into effect on 13 th June 2025, in case the settlement agreement as recorded in the Order dated 13th July 2023, is not complied with.
29. In case, the respondent does not comply with the said directions, he is directed to appear before the Registrar General of this Court on 13th June 2025 by 11:30 am for surrender.
30. The Registrar General is directed, on the said date, to take all necessary steps to have the convicted contemnor to be taken into custody and cause him to be sent to Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi under appropriate warrant of commitment for undergoing the sentence awarded.
31. The respondent is directed to appear on 17th May 2025, before the Registrar General, to furnish a security bond of ₹ 50,000/- and a surety of the like amount, for his surrender”
5. Despite the opportunity granted to the Appellant to purge his contempt the same was not availed of by the Appellant within the time prescribed by the ld. Single Judge. Thereafter, the Appellant had preferred the present appeal against the order of the ld. Single Judge. 6. On the first date of hearing in this Appeal, i.e., on 13th June, 2025, the Appellant had undertaken to comply with the settlement agreement in the following terms:
Courtroom undertakes to pay the balance principal amount of Rs. 1,28,00,000/- to respondent no.l within ten days from today in the manner that Rs.28,00,000/shall be paid by 16.06.2025 and the balance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall be paid by 23.06.2025. As regards the interest and the additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/for every ten days delay, the matter shall be further taken up on the next date. 7. It is made clear that the above indulgence is being extended”
7. However, on 3rd July, 2025, the Court upon considering the fact that the Appellant/Contemnor had neither appeared before the Court nor complied with his undertaking before this Court on 13th June, 2025, had directed the Contemnor/Appellant to be taken into custody in the following terms:
8. On 23rd July, 2025 the Appellant was produced from judicial custody. His brother was also present in Court. After hearing submissions, the Court directed the Appellant, to produce a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs by way of Demand Drafts on the next date, i.e., on 30th July 2025.
9. Prior to the hearing on 30th July 2025, this Court has received an order dated 14th July, 2025 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 17844/2025 titled ‘Puneet Singh vs Nupur Pal & Anr.’ wherein order dated 3rd July, 2025 passed in the present Appeal, was challenged. The said order is a detailed order, wherein the Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as under:- “…..9. That being the position, respondent Nupur Pal initiated proceedings for contempt in the High Court at Delhi in the form of Contempt Case (c) No.759/2024 against the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner, contending that they have neither complied with the Mos nor with their undertaking as repeatedly given to the court. In the said contempt proceedings, the petitioner appeared on 24.04.2025 and committed to refund the amount, however, that was also not followed. Accordingly, on the next date i.e. 13.05.2025, when he personally appeared before the contempt court, the court on being satisfied that there is disobedience of the undertaking, imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) upon him and directed for his simple imprisonment for a term of four months. The punishment was to come into effect after a month i.e. with effect from 13.06.2025 provided the payment is not made under the settlement.
10. The aforementioned order was challenged by the petitioner by means of Contempt Appeal (C) No.13/2025 before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The Division Bench vide order dated 03.07.2025 upon consideration of the entire facts, formed an opinion that the petitioner is guilty of violation of the undertaking and as such, in consonance with the order passed in the contempt petition directed that the petitioner be taken into custody by the next date and the appeal was directed to be listed on 21.07.2025.
11. It is the above order of the Division Bench dated 03.07.2025 which has been impugned by the petitioner in this Special Leave Petition.
12. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he could not comply with the undertaking as the property had been attached by the court order dated 27.02.2024.
13. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the MoS or the undertaking given by him, it appears that in order to realize the amount, which the petitioner had agreed to repay, the order of attachment of the petitioner's/his mother's property was passed on 27.02.2024. The aforesaid order of attachment has not been challenged by the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that even after the order of attachment was passed, petitioner had appeared before the contempt court on 24.04.2025 and gave a commitment for the refund of the amount. This commitment was also not honoured by him.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that since the petitioner has violated the MoS, the undertaking and the commitment made to the contempt court, there is no reason for us to interfere with the order impugned either passed by the Division Bench or the contempt court. However, as for the purposes of realizing the amount payable by the petitioner, the property has already been attached, we permit the trial court to proceed further in the matter and to bring it to a logical end by the sale of the said property so as to satisfy the dues of the respondent Nupur Pal, leaving it open for the petitioner to take appropriate remedies in the matter against the orders that may be passed by the civil court or by the contempt court.
15. The Special Leave Petition, as such, lacks merit and is dismissed.”
10. In terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court the challenge to the orders of the Contempt court and this court dated 3rd July 2025, has been rejected. As per the directions of the Supreme Court the subject property itself is to be sold for realization of dues of the Respondent.
11. During the hearing on 30th July 2025, the Appellant sought to tneder a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs by way of Demand Draft. No mention was made about the order passed by the Supreme Court, by the Appellant’s side. When the court queried and informed the parties of the Supreme Court order, both counsels as also parties expressed complete lack of knowledge of the filing of the SLP itself. It was shocking that the Appellant-Mr. Puneet Singh and his brother-Mr. Suneet Singh denied having filed the said SLP. The said brother further confirmed that his mother has also not filed any SLP challenging the order dated 3rd July, 2025. A reading of the order of the Supreme Court leaves no doubt that the SLP has been filed on behalf of the Appellant-Mr. Puneet Singh. However, even the ld. Counsels appearing for the parties before this Court had submitted that they are also not aware of the filing of the said SLP.
12. It is noted that none appeared for the Respondents before the Supreme Court and that neither the Appellant nor the ld. Counsel appearing before this Court was aware of the Counsels whose appearance was marked in the Supreme Court order for the Appellant. In this background, the Court directed notice to be served upon the AOR reflected in the order for appearance today. The relevant portion of order dated 30th July 2025 reads as under:
14. The ld. Counsels appearing for the parties before this Court have submitted that they are also not aware of the filing of the said Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
15. Considering the above, before passing any further orders, it is deemed appropriate to request Ms. Mona K. Rajvanshi, the concerned Advocate-on- Record who appears to have filed the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court to clarify the position.”
13. Thus, the Court had issued notice to the Advocate-on-record Ms. Mona
14. Today, the ld. AOR - Ms. Mona K. Rajvanshi has appeared and she submits that the SLP was not drafted by her. The same was drafted by Mr. Ram Naresh, who she terms as the Drawing Counsel. According to her, the vakalatnama was also signed by the Appellant himself and he was identified by Mr. Ram Naresh, the said Drawing Counsel. It is on the basis of these representations, she states, that she proceeded to file the said SLP before the Supreme Court.
15. She has handed over the following documents in this regard:
(i) copy of vakalatnama,
(ii) the copy of the SLP which was filed before the Supreme Court which shows that the same is claimed to have been drafted by three lawyers namely Mr. Ram Naresh, Mr. Vikramjit Singh and Mr. Susheel Kumar.
16. It is stated that the matter was argued before the Supreme Court by Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate who is also present before this Court today. Both Mr. Ram Naresh and Mr. Krishna Murari Advocates state that Mr. Suneet Singh had approached them for filing of the SLP on behalf of his brother, and he had come to meet them in Patiala House Court. Further the Court is also informed that Mr. Vikramjit Singh is the real brother of the Appellant, who himself is a lawyer.
17. It is also noticed that the affidavit in support of the SLP has been filed by Mr. Suneet Singh, the other brother who was also present in the Court on the last date and denied having any knowledge of the SLP.
18. The Appellant has also been produced from judicial custody. Mr. Suneet Singh and Mr. Vikramjit Singh are also present in the Court. An affidavit of apology has been tendered by Mr. Suneet Singh that at the time when the Appellant was arrested, he had signed several documents and was not fully aware of the exact nature of the documents signed. Hence, there was some confusion due to which he did not inform the correct facts to the Court on the last date of hearing.
19. The events captured above would show that for some reason, none of the parties involved have taken responsibility for the filing of the SLP. In fact, both the counsels, who appeared before this Court, for the Appellant or for the Respondent were not even aware of the SLP having been filed. The order passed by the Supreme Court was received directly by the Registry of this Court and was placed before us. It was during the course of hearing that when the Court mentioned about the order passed by the Supreme Court, they had expressed their surprise, which led to notice being issued to the Advocate-on- Record.
20. There are contradictory stands being taken by the parties involved. The Appellant, who was produced from judicial custody on the last date, as also the brother, Mr. Suneet Singh who was present, categorically denied having any knowledge of the SLP, which led us to issuing the notice to the advocate on record. However, today, the Appellant submits that he had signed the vakalatnama but he did not recall as he had signed many documents when he had been taken into judicial custody.
21. It needs no emphasis that a litigant is free to challenge the order and avail of remedies in accordance with law. However, the act of not placing an order which has been passed by the Supreme Court on record cannot be an aspect that can be simply brushed aside as a simple matter. The litigant as also the ld. Counsel have a responsibility to place the relevant orders on record to ensure that the same is brought to the knowledge of the Court. It was merely because of the fact that the order was received by the Registry of this Court and was placed before this Court without any time lag, that the Court acquired knowledge of the order.
22. The said order dated 14th July, 2025 is extremely relevant for this Court to consider the manner in which the present appeal ought to be proceeded with. Thus, the non-disclosure of the order of the Supreme Court by the Appellant is a serious matter.
23. Under such circumstances, the Court takes serious note of the conduct of the Appellant and both his brothers, Mr. Vikramjit Singh and Mr. Suneet Singh. In the opinion of this Court, such conduct is prima-facie improper.
24. However, considering the fact that an affidavit of apology has been tendered today by Mr. Suneet Singh and Mr. Vikramjit Singh also appeared in person and expressed his remorse, the Court is inclined to put the matter to rest.
25. In the facts and circumstances of this case, both Mr. Vikramjit Singh and Mr. Suneet Singh are directed to jointly deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as costs within two weeks with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee in the following bank account: Name: Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee A/c No.: 15530110008386 Bank: UCO BANK Branch: DELHI HIGH COURT IFSC: UCBA0001553 No further action is being taken in this regard against the said two brothers.
26. Insofar as the Appellant is concerned, the Appellant has been produced from judicial custody. Rs.15,00,000/- was tendered on the last date and in continuation of the same, today, a further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been tendered as well. In the order of the Supreme Court dated 14th July, 2025, the Court has clearly directed as under: “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that since the petitioner has violated the MoS, the undertaking and the commitment made to the contempt court, there is no reason for us to interfere with the order impugned either passed by the Division Bench or the contempt court. However, as for the purposes of realizing the amount payable by the petitioner, the property has already been attached, we permit the trial court to proceed further in the matter and to bring it to a logical end by the sale of the said property so as to satisfy the dues of the respondent Nupur Pal, leaving it open for the petitioner to take appropriate remedies in the matter against the orders that may be passed by the civil court or by the contempt court.”
27. A perusal of the above order would reveal that the contempt order dated 13th May, 2025 and the order of this Court dated 3rd July, 2025 have been upheld and not interfered with by the Supreme Court. In view thereof, nothing further is to be adjudicated by this Court in the present appeal.
28. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The demand drafts for the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- are returned to the Counsel Mr. Mohit K. Mudgal in the presence of the parties. The Appellant is free to tender the same before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall now proceed strictly in accordance with the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 14th July, 2025.
29. The copy of the vakalatnama and the affidavit of apology as also the copy of the SLP shall be retained on record.
30. The appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of in the above terms.
31. The Appellant be taken back to judicial custody, for serving of the sentence in terms of the order dated 13th May 2025 passed by the Contempt Court.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 4, 2025/kp/Ar.