BABU RAM GUPTA versus SUDHIR BHASIN & ANR.

Non-compliance with a consent order, absent a clear express undertaking on record, does not constitute an offence under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Parties: Appellant: Babu Ram Gupta; Respondent 1: Sudhir Bhasin; Respondent 2: Jagatri Lal Bhasin
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 12 April 1979
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Delhi High Court in Criminal Original No. 61/77 Dated 27 10 1978
Outcome: Appeal allowed; conviction and order of detention quashed; appellant acquitted of offence under section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Legal Topics: Consent Orders, Breach of Undertaking, Execution of Decrees

Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Consent Orders Breach of Undertaking Execution of Decrees

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2

Parties

Babu Ram Gupta

Appellant

Sudhir Bhasin

Respondent 1

Jagatri Lal Bhasin

Respondent 2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Delhi High Court in Criminal Original No. 61/77 Dated 27 10 1978

Legal Issues

1 Does disobedience of a consent order amount to contempt of court under section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?
2 Is breach of a supposed undertaking in a consent order punishable as contempt absent express undertaking on record?

Ratio Decidendi

Non-compliance with a consent order, absent a clear express undertaking on record, does not constitute an offence under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and order of detention quashed; appellant acquitted of offence under section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Orders

The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
The appellant's detention in civil prison for four months is quashed.