The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has reiterated that disobedience of an injunction order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) does not get erased even if the injunction is subsequently set aside. The verdict was delivered in Smt. Lavanya C & Anr. vs. Vittal Gurudas Pai & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13999 of 2024), arising from a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against a Karnataka High Court decision.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated April 30, 2004, executed for the construction of residential apartments. As per the agreement, the construction was to be completed within 24 months, i.e., by October 31, 2006. However, the project failed to meet the deadline, prompting the plaintiffs (respondents in the Supreme Court) to issue a legal notice on March 23, 2007, terminating the JDA and subsequently filing Original Suit No. 4191 of 2007 seeking a declaration of revocation.
During the proceedings, the defendants (appellants in the Supreme Court) provided an undertaking before the Trial Court on July 11, 2007, and August 13, 2007, stating they would not alienate the disputed property. However, the plaintiffs alleged that despite this commitment, the defendants executed multiple sale deeds in violation of the undertaking, leading to contempt proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC.
The Trial Court dismissed the contempt application, citing insufficient evidence, but the Karnataka High Court, in Misc. First Appeal No. 7055 of 2013 (CPC), overturned the decision and held the defendants guilty of contempt. The High Court sentenced the second appellant, Chalsani R.B., to three months in civil prison and ordered attachment of the subject property for one year, along with a compensation payment of ₹10 lakh.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
Hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol upheld the Karnataka High Court’s findings, observing that the High Court was justified in exercising its contempt jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that even if an injunction order is later set aside, the responsibility for disobedience committed during its validity remains.
Quoting the ruling in Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998) 7 SCC 59, the Supreme Court observed:
“Even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience thereof does not get erased. It may be a different matter that the rigour of such disobedience may be toned down if the order is subsequently set aside.”
The bench also referenced Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, reaffirming that violation of an injunction must be remedied under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, while execution of a decree should be pursued under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.
Relationship Between Lawyers and Clients
A key contention in the appeal was that the defendants’ advocate had provided the undertaking without specific authorization from the clients. The Court dismissed this argument, reiterating that a lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature, and clients are bound by representations made by their counsel in court. It cited Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373 to emphasize that lawyers must act in their clients’ best interests and adhere to express instructions.
Modification of Sentence
While upholding the contempt conviction, the Supreme Court modified the sentence, considering the appellant’s advanced age. The three-month imprisonment was revoked, but the attachment of the property remained in place. Additionally, the compensation amount was enhanced from ₹10 lakh to ₹13 lakh, with 6% simple interest from August 2, 2013.
