DR. (MRS.) ROSHAN SAM BOYCE versus B.R. COTTON MILLS LTD. AND ORS.

DR. (MRS.) ROSHAN SAM BOYCE versus B.R. COTTON MILLS LTD. AND ORS.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 gave an undertaking and clarification to the court, falsely implying that respondent No. 1 was in possession of the premises and able to hand over possession, while in fact respondent No. 2 was claiming sub-tenancy and retained possession. This constituted dishonesty and contempt of court, thus respondents No. 1 and 2 were guilty of contempt. To do justice, the appellant was to be put in possession of the premises pending the declaratory suit.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. (Mrs.) Roshan Sam Boyce; Respondent No. 1: B.R. Cotton Mills Ltd.; Respondent No. 2: Respondent No. 2 (Chairman of B.R. Cotton Mills Ltd.); Respondent No. 3: Respondent No. 3 (Director of B.R. Cotton Mills Ltd.)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 April 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Contempt Petition No. 106 of 1987
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Civil Contempt, Eviction, Tenancy, Jurisdiction Under Article 142, Undertaking to Court, Punishment of Contempt
Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Landlord Tenant Constitutional Law Civil Contempt Eviction Tenancy Jurisdiction Under Article 142 +2 more

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. (Mrs.) Roshan Sam Boyce

Appellant

B.R. Cotton Mills Ltd.

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 2 (Chairman of B.R. Cotton Mills Ltd.)

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 3 (Director of B.R. Cotton Mills Ltd.)

Respondent No. 3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Contempt Petition No. 106 of 1987

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents No. 1 and 2 committed contempt by giving a false undertaking to the High Court regarding possession of suit premises
  2. 2 Whether Article 142 confers jurisdiction on Supreme Court to do complete justice in contempt proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents No. 1 and 2 gave an undertaking and clarification to the court, falsely implying that respondent No. 1 was in possession of the premises and able to hand over possession, while in fact respondent No. 2 was claiming sub-tenancy and retained possession. This constituted dishonesty and contempt of court, thus respondents No. 1 and 2 were guilty of contempt. To do justice, the appellant was to be put in possession of the premises pending the declaratory suit.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside.

Orders

  • Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay, to appoint appellant as agent and hand over possession to her on terms and conditions as he thinks fit, with royalty limited to actual outgoings plus Rs.200 per month.
  • Order to be complied with within eight weeks from service of copy of order on Court Receiver.