RAMA NARANG versus RAMESH NARANG AND ANOTHER

RAMA NARANG versus RAMESH NARANG AND ANOTHER

Respondents are guilty of committing contempt of court for deliberate and wilful disobedience of their undertakings to the Supreme Court, specifically by violating joint management and control provisions and circumventing cheque signing requirements for large transactions, despite the clear terms of the consent order incorporated in the decree.

Parties
Petitioner: Rama Narang; Respondent: Ramesh Narang; Respondent: Rajesh Narang
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (c) No. 148 of 2003 and Connected Cases / Final Disposition
Outcome
Respondents convicted for contempt; sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and fine imposed, sentence kept in abeyance.
Legal Topics
Consent Orders, Undertakings, Company Management, Civil Contempt, Joint Control
Contempt Law Company Law Family Law Consent Orders Undertakings Company Management Civil Contempt Joint Control

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rama Narang

Petitioner

Ramesh Narang

Respondent

Rajesh Narang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (c) No. 148 of 2003 and Connected Cases / Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breach of consent order and undertaking amounts to contempt of court under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
  2. 2 Whether respondents wilfully disobeyed the Supreme Court's orders based on consent terms
  3. 3 What consequences follow from deliberate violation of undertaking given to court

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents are guilty of committing contempt of court for deliberate and wilful disobedience of their undertakings to the Supreme Court, specifically by violating joint management and control provisions and circumventing cheque signing requirements for large transactions, despite the clear terms of the consent order incorporated in the decree.

Court Disposition

Respondents convicted for contempt; sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and fine imposed, sentence kept in abeyance.

Orders

  • Conviction for contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
  • Sentence: simple imprisonment for two months.