Pt. KISHORI LAL SHUKLA LAW COLLEGE, RAJNANDGAON (C.G.

)
{AFFILIATED – HEMCHAND YADAV VISHWAVIDYALAYA, DURG (C.G.)}

PROJECT TOPIC
“THE CONTEMPT LAW AND PRACTISE – IMPORTANT CASES.”
PRESENTATION FOR
PAPER – V OF LLB-2nd YEAR, 1ST SEMESTER
(SUBJECT – PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM)

FOR
SESSION – 2018-19

GUIDED BY -
SHRI ADITYA SHRIVASTAVA SIR

SUBMITTED BY -
VIVEK SHRIVASTAVA
ROLL NO. – 7656035049
ENROLLMENT NO. – DA / 2017 /18887
 INTRODUCTION

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as

"contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to
or discourteous toward a court of law and its
officers in the form of behaviour that opposes or
defies the authority, justice and dignity of the
court. There are broadly two categories of
contempt:
(i). Being rude or disrespectful to legal authorities
in the courtroom.
(ii).Willfully failing to obey a court order.
 Governing statute &
type of contempt

The contempt are governed and regulated as per

the provisions laid down under Contempt of
Court Act, 1971.

The contempt of court are sub categorized under

two types –
(i). Civil Contempt.
(ii). Criminal Contempt.
 "Civil Contempt"

 Civil Contempt as provided under Sec 2 (b) of

Contempt of Court Act, 1971, is -
1. Wilful disobedience of:-
i. Judgement,
ii. Decree,
iii. Direction,
iv. Order,
v. Writ ,
vi. Other process of Court;
2.Wilful breach of undertaking given to a court.
 "Criminal Contempt"
Criminal Contempt as provided under Sec 2 (c) of
Contempt of Court Act, 1971, is defined as-
“Publication” (whether by words, spoken / written, or
by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any
matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:
a) Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or
tends to lower the authority of, any court, or
b) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with
the due course of any judicial proceeding, or
c) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs
or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice
in any other manner.
 “punishment"
Punishment or contempt is imprisonment for 6
Months, &/or Fine upto Rs. 2,000/-;
Provision to discharge Contemnor, or
Remit punishment- On Apology being made to
the Court’s satisfaction;
 Apology not to be rejected merely because it
is qualified / conditional,
- if made bona-fide.
 “CAse stuDY - 1"

Ashok Paper Kamgar Union & Ors.

vs
Dharam Godha & Ors.

{Case of Willful Disobedience (Civil Contempt)}

In this case, the Supreme Court examined the provision of Section 2(b)
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that defines the term civil
contempt and held that the term ‘Willful’ under Section 2(b) means an
act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the
specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific
intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say
with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law.

It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad

motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the
order of the Court must be of such a nature which is capable of
execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not
require any extra ordinary effort nor should be dependent, either
wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its
compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case.
 “CAse stuDY - 3"

RAMA NARANG
vs.
RAMesh NARANG
Willful Disobedience (Civil Contempt)
{Violation of Undertaking/Consent Terms is Contempt}
In this case, the High Court of Karnataka observed that the
orders of Courts have to be obeyed unless and until they are
set aside in appeal/revision.
While elucidating on the principles relating to contempt law the Court
remarked that the definition of Civil Contempt includes willful breach
of an undertaking given to a Court. Public interest requires that solemn
undertakings given to a Court with the intention of obtaining any
benefit should not be breached willfully. No litigant can be allowed to
wriggle away from a solemn undertaking given to the Court, as it will
open dangerous trends and defeat the very purpose of giving
undertakings to Court. It was further observed that once litigants give
an undertaking to a Court, they should comply with it in all
circumstances, the only exceptions being fraud or statutory bar. They
cannot break an undertaking with impunity and then attempt to justify
it. The breach of solemn undertaking given to a Court is a
serious matter and will have to be dealt with seriously.
 “CAse stuDY - 2"

Balasubramaniyam
vs.
P. Janakaraju
Willful Disobedience (Civil Contempt)
{Case of Willful Breach of Undertaking (Civil Contempt)}
In this case, the respondent argued relating to the maintainability
of the contempt petition filed by the petitioner before Supreme
Court by taking a plea that the consent order recorded before the
court did not contain an undertaking or an injunction of the court
and hence could not form the basis of any proceedings for
contempt.

The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that the consent
terms arrived at between the parties before it, having been
incorporated in the order passed by the court, any violation of the
said terms of the consent order and connected matters would
tantamount to violation of the Court’s order and therefore, be
punishable under the first limb of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
 SUBMITTED BY -
VIVEK SHRIVASTAVA
ROLL NO. – 7656035049
ENROLLMENT NO. – DA / 2017 /18887