IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA versus IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA

IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA versus IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA

On the basis of record material and established authority, the Court found that Perry gave solemn undertakings and filed affidavits containing false or non-disclosed material facts, obtained orders on that basis, removed the child from Indian jurisdiction, and thereafter acted contumaciously; such conduct amounted to criminal contempt and contempt for violating express undertakings, and warranted recalling earlier orders and initiation of contempt proceedings, with Perry held guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Parties
Alleged Contemnor: Perry Kansagra; Applicant: Smriti Madan Kansagra; Investigating Agency: Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Suo Motu Contempt Petition (civil) No. 3 of 2021 / Guilty Finding; Hearing for Punishment Scheduled (listed 22.07.2022)
Outcome
Perry Kansagra held guilty of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Legal Topics
Contempt Proceedings, False Affidavits and Undertakings, Child Custody, Mirror Order/registration of Foreign Judgment, Recall of Judgment
Contempt of Court Family Law Criminal Law International Judicial Cooperation Contempt Proceedings False Affidavits and Undertakings Child Custody Mirror Order/registration of Foreign Judgment +1 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perry Kansagra

Alleged Contemnor

Smriti Madan Kansagra

Applicant

Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi

Investigating Agency

Procedural Posture

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (civil) No. 3 of 2021 / Guilty Finding; Hearing for Punishment Scheduled (listed 22.07.2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tendering affidavits and undertakings containing false statements amounts to criminal contempt
  2. 2 Whether orders obtained by practising fraud upon the Court should be recalled
  3. 3 Whether proceedings in contempt jurisdiction can be initiated suo motu and proceeded with in absence of the alleged contemnor

Ratio Decidendi

On the basis of record material and established authority, the Court found that Perry gave solemn undertakings and filed affidavits containing false or non-disclosed material facts, obtained orders on that basis, removed the child from Indian jurisdiction, and thereafter acted contumaciously; such conduct amounted to criminal contempt and contempt for violating express undertakings, and warranted recalling earlier orders and initiation of contempt proceedings, with Perry held guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Court Disposition

Perry Kansagra held guilty of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Orders

  • Judgment dated 28.10.2020 and Order dated 08.12.2020 recalled
  • Suo motu contempt proceedings registered against Perry Kansagra