Supreme Court of India
M/S CHITHRA WOODS MANORS WELFARE ASSOCIATIONversusSHAJI AUGUSTINE
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 567
- Decided
- 24 April 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s intentional and deliberate non‑compliance with the Court’s order amounted to civil contempt, warranting imprisonment and a fine.
Summary
The petitioner, a welfare association, owned a resort property that the respondent was licensed to occupy for ten years on payment of monthly fees. The respondent repeatedly defaulted on those fees, leading to arbitration, a settlement reducing the fees, and subsequent execution proceedings ordering him to pay arrears in instalments. The Supreme Court, on 7 November 2022, directed the respondent to pay the arrears in six monthly instalments and continue paying monthly use charges. The respondent failed to make any payment despite receiving account details, continued to occupy the property, and claimed financial incapacity, prompting the petitioner to file a civil contempt petition. The Court held that the respondent’s deliberate refusal to comply, despite clear ability to do so, amounted to wilful disobedience of a court order and malafide misuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the respondent was found guilty of civil contempt, sentenced to three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of INR 20,000, with a further month’s imprisonment for default, and was given 30 days to purge the contempt. The contempt proceedings were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent's failure to pay the arrears as directed by the Supreme Court constitutes civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Whether the respondent's claim of financial incapacity is a genuine defence or a malafide attempt to evade compliance.
- Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to punish the respondent for contempt in the circumstances of the case.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 17, s. 37
- Contempt of Court Act, 1971s. 2(b)
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the Respondent-alleged contemnor is guilty of civil contempt for non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide Order dated 07.11.2022. Headnotes† Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s.2(b) – When – Agreement entered between the Petitioner-Association and Respondent permitted the latter to occupy and use the Property of the Petitioner for 10 years on payment of licence fees – Persistent defaults in the payment of licence fees by the Respondent – Litigation between
Subjects
Contempt of CourtCivil contemptWilful disobedienceNon-payment of arrearsMalafide intentionMisguiding the CourtMisuse of the process of courtIntentional and deliberate non-complianceWilful breach of undertakingNot approaching the Court with clean handsTarnish the image of judiciary
Judgment
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2707 : 2025 INSC 567
M/s Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association
v.
Shaji Augustine
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 712 of 2023
In
SLP (Civil) No. 17433 of 2021)
24 April 2025
[Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Respondent-alleged contemnor is guilty of civil
contempt for non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court
vide Order dated 07.11.2022.
Headnotes†
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – s.2(b) – Civil contempt –
When – Agreement entered between the Petitioner-Association
and Respondent permitted the latter to occupy and use the
Property of the Petitioner for 10 years on payment of licence
fees – Persistent defaults in the payment of licence fees by
the Respondent – Litigation between parties across forums;
settlement Agreement arrived at however, Respondent
again defaulted in making payment thereunder – Eventually,
matter reached this court; vide order dtd. 07.11.2022 as an
interim measure, Respondent was directed to pay arrears of
use and occupation charges in six monthly instalments –
Non-compliance by the Respondent alleging financial
incapabilities – Contempt Petition filed by the Association:
Held: Civil contempt means wilful disobedience of judgment,
decree, or direction, order, writ or other process of the Court or wilful
breach of an undertaking given to the Court – All throughout, the
Respondent had been in possession of the property and utilising the
income generated from running of the said resort – Non-fulfilment of
the mandate and direction of this Court which were at the request
of the Respondent himself reflects his intent to not comply with
the order rather to violate the same with impunity – The conduct
clearly reflects that the intention of the Respondent was to gain
the benefit by running the resort in the subject property without
paying the current liability, what to say of the arrears – A party,
* Author
2708 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
misguiding the Court to pass an order which was never intended
to be complied with, would constitute an act of overawing the due
process of law and, thus, commit contempt of Court – From the
very beginning till the very end the Respondent took the Court for
a ride – There has been intentional and deliberate non-compliance
on the part of the Respondent of the order passed by this Court,
contempt of which stands committed, but on getting an interim order
of continuing in possession usurped the earnings instead of paying
off the dues – Therefore, the malafide is writ large – Respondent
guilty of Civil Contempt – 3 months simple imprisonment imposed
with fine of INR 20,000/- – However, 30 days granted as one more
opportunity to purge the contempt and comply with the Order dtd.
07.11.2022. [Paras 28, 31, 36, 41, 42]
Case Law Cited
In re Hira Lal Dixit and Two Others [1955] 1 SCR 677 : (1954)
2 SCC 325; Bank of India v. Vijay Transport and Others [2000]
Supp. 3 SCR 685 : (2000) 8 SCC 512; Sitaram Enterprises v.
Prithviraj Vardichand Jain [2024] 9 SCR 414 : 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 2493 – referred to.
List of Acts
Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
List of Keywords
Contempt of Court; Civil contempt; Wilful disobedience; Non-
payment of arrears of use and occupation charges; Malafide
intention; Misguiding the Court; Misuse of the process of court;
Intentional and deliberate non-compliance of the order of court;
Wilful breach of an undertaking given to the Court; Not approaching
the Court with clean hands; Tarnish the image of judiciary.
Case Arising From
INHERENT JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 712
of 2023
In
SLP (Civil) No. 17433 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2023 of Supreme Court
of India at New Delhi in SLP (C) No. 17433 of 2021
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2709
M/s Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association v. Shaji Augustine
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Nishe Rajen Shonker, Babu Karukapadath, Mrs. Anu K Joy,
Alim Anvar.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, Mrs. Samriti Ahuja, Ms. Aditi Prakash,
Karan Singh Dalal, Aditya Shenoy.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Augustine George Masih, J.
1. The instant Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 712 of 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as “instant Petition”) in SLP (C) No. 17433 of 2021
(hereinafter referred to as “main Petition”) was filed during its
pendency by M/s Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association, being
the Respondent No. 01 therein (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner
Association”), alleging non-payment of arrears of use and occupation
charges for period between 20.09.2021 and 31.11.2022 in six monthly
instalments beginning 31.12.2022, as directed by this Court vide
Order dated 07.11.2022 in the main Petition.
2. This petition was then tagged along with the main Petition vide Order
dated 24.02.2023 and eventually, owing to the said non-payment of
arrears, the main Petition was disposed of as this Court observed
to not entertain the prayer of Mr Shaji Augustine, the Petitioner
therein (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent-Contemnor”) but the
proceedings in instant Petition sustained.
3. Facts forming the backdrop of the instant Petition are that the
Petitioner Association is owner of the decree scheduled building,
consisting of 96 furnished studio apartments, at Munnar, Kerala
(hereinafter referred to as the “said Property”). An agreement
was entered between the Petitioner Association and Respondent-
Contemnor on 26.01.2014, permitting the latter to occupy and use
the said Property for a period of 10 years as against payment of
licence fees of INR 12 Lakhs per month (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Agreement).
2710 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4. Within a short period of entering into the said Agreement, Respondent-
Contemnor defaulted in payment of the license fees. On persistent
default, Petitioner Association was constrained to institute OS No.30
of 2015 before the Sub Court at Thodupuzha, Kerala for realization
of the arrears and other reliefs. As there was an arbitration clause in
the said Agreement and on consent of the parties herein, the dispute
was referred to a Sole Arbitrator.
5. Before the Sole Arbitrator, the Petitioner Association moved I.A. No.
01 of 2016 under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (hereinafter referred to as “A&C Act”), seeking direction to
the Respondent-Contemnor to deposit INR 1,65,73,459/- (Rupees
One crore Sixty-Five Lakhs Seventy-Three Thousand Four Hundred
Fifty-Nine only) during pendency of the proceedings. The same was
partially allowed vide Order dated 23.06.2016 with direction to deposit
INR 1,36,49,439/- (Rupees One crore Thirty-Six Lakhs Forty-Nine
Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-Nine only) and per undertaking of the
Respondent-Contemnor, payment of INR 12 lakhs per mensem for
month of June 2016 onwards, on or before the 10th of the succeeding
month, pending disposal of the proceedings.
6. Both Respondent-Contemnor and Petitioner Association moved in
appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act before the District Court at
Ernakulam, Kerala. A Common Order dated 21.01.2017 was passed,
staying the proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator with reiteration of
direction to Respondent-Contemnor to pay arrears at the rate of INR
12 Lakhs per month with effect from 08.09.2016 with a further order to
continue to pay INR 12 Lakhs per month towards monthly license fee.
7. This common order was challenged by the Respondent-Contemnor
before the High Court of Kerala in O.P. (C) No 552 of 2017. The
matter was referred for mediation at the request of the parties. The
said mediation proceedings, lead to a Compromise dated 03.04.2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Settlement Agreement”), Petitioner
Association agreed to reduce the monthly license fees to INR 8 Lakhs
per month. Arrears, as claimed before the Sole Arbitrator, were also
reduced from INR 1,65,73,439/- to INR 75 Lakhs. Moreover, it was
specifically recorded that the settlement entered between the parties
would form part of the judgment. There was a specific clause that
in case of default by any of the parties to any of the terms of the
agreement the other would be entitled to proceed against the other
party. The parties resolved their disputes, and the terms of settlement
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2711
M/s Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association v. Shaji Augustine
arrived at between them were accepted by the High Court of Kerala
and were incorporated in the Order dated 11.04.2017.
8. On default on the part of the Respondent-Contemnor in making
payment through a promissory note, as per the Settlement Agreement,
Petitioner Association preferred Execution Petition No. 58 of 2020
on 11.03.2020, no money was paid by the Respondent-Contemnor
with effect from the month of July 2018. The Respondent-Contemnor
was unsuccessful before the District Court in EA No. 14 of 2021
in its challenge to the maintainability of the execution petition. The
Execution Court passed an Order dated 23.03.2021, giving an
instalment facility to the Respondent-Contemnor for payments of its
arrears, with the first being due on 01.06.2021 and the last being
01.09.2021. Furthermore, the amount of arrears being undisputed,
and nothing having been paid, the Execution Court ordered delivery
of the said Property. The Respondent-Contemnor challenged the
order of the Execution Court before the High Court of Kerala, which
was dismissed vide Judgment dated 20.09.2021.
9. It is at this stage that the respondent preferred the main Petition
before this Court challenging the Judgment dated 20.09.2021. Notice
was issued vide Order dated 12.11.2021 and subsequently, status
quo was ordered vide Order dated 04.02.2022 vis-à-vis the said
Property. The matter ultimately came for consideration on 07.11.2022
when following Order was passed:-
“List on a non-miscellaneous day in the month of March,
2023.
In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, we are inclined
to direct that the petitioner will pay Rs. 12 lakhs per month
to the respondent as use and occupation charges w.e.f.
20.09.2021 (the date of the impugned judgment). As
prayed on behalf of the petitioner, the arrears @ Rs. 12
lakhs per month from 20.09.2021 till 31.11.2022, would
be paid in six monthly instalments beginning 31.12.2022.
The petitioner would also continue to make payment of
Rs. 12 lakhs per month in the future by the 10th day of
each succeeding calendar month.
The payment would be subject to the outcome of the
present Special Leave Petition.”
2712 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10. A perusal of the above would show that a direction was issued to
the Respondent-Contemnor to pay arrears for the period specified
therein in six monthly instalments beginning from 31.12.2022, totalling
to INR 172 Lakhs, at the rate of INR 12 Lakhs per month, and being
INR 28.60 Lakhs per instalment.
11. Pursuant to the Order dated 07.11.2022, the Respondent-Contemnor
sent an e-mail to the Petitioner Association containing a letter dated
17.11.2022 seeking the concerned account details of the Petitioner
Association for the Respondent-Contemnor to transfer the arrears
enabling him to affect compliance with Order dated 07.11.2022
passed by this Court. The said details were provided by the Petitioner
Association on 14.12.2022 in response to the aforesaid e-mail. Despite
getting the required information, no amount was paid to the Petitioner
Association and yet, the Respondent-Contemnor continued to enjoy
and occupy the said Property. It is apparent that the intention on
the part of the Respondent-Contemnor was not to do away with the
possession of the said Property and to hold on to it owing to his act
of moving the main Petition for challenging the handing over of the
possession of the said Property.
12. Petitioner Association asserts that deliberate action on behalf of the
respondent in not complying with the direction issued by this Court
on 17.11.2022 with continuous default on his part amounts to civil
contempt which is deliberate and intentional disobedience of the
order of this Court.
13. Subsequently, on 01.12.2023, when both the main Petition and instant
Petition were taken up for hearing following order was passed:-
“The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states
that the petitioner has already vacated the premises subject
matter of this Special Leave Petition.
We find that the order dated 7th November, 2022 directing
the petitioner to deposit money has not been complied
with. The petitioner has expressed inability to pay the
money. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India is always discretionary.
Considering the conduct of the petitioner of not paying
a single farthing after 7th November, 2022, we decline
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2713
M/s Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association v. Shaji Augustine
to entertain this Special Leave Petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
However, the question of law is kept open to be considered
in an appropriate case.
Pending application also stand disposed of.
CONMT. PET. (C) No. 712/2023 in SLP(C) No. 17433/2021.
List on 22nd January, 2024.”
14. With the main Petition having been dismissed, the instant Petition
continued to survive and was taken up for hearing on various dates.
Respondent-Contemnor was called upon by this Court on 15.03.2024
to file an affidavit giving details of all his movable and immovable
assets as also that of his immediate family members along with
the necessary documents. This was in light of the statement of the
counsel of the Respondent-Contemnor that he is not in a position
to deposit any amount.
15. After filing of the affidavit by the Respondent-Contemnor and on
perusal thereof this Court on 12.09.2024 found the Respondent-
Contemnor, who was appearing through video conferencing, of
having committed wilful breach of the directions contained in the
Order dated 07.11.2022. The Respondent-Contemnor was ordered
to be heard on the said charge as no amount had been paid by him
and was directed to be personally present in Court. The Respondent-
Contemnor subsequently appeared and an opportunity was given
to comply with the Order while being heard on charge. Owing to
his non-intention to comply, the case was kept reserved for orders.
16. Stand of the Respondent-Contemnor in the affidavit which has been
filed is that the compliance of the Order dated 07.11.2022 passed by
this Court is beyond his financial and physical capabilities. It is thus,
neither deliberate nor an intentional non-compliance of the order and
is only on account of his penury. He has, thus, prayed for dropping
of the current contempt proceedings.
17. Counsel for the Petitioner Association, on the other hand, has
asserted that the conduct of the Respondent-Contemnor from the
very beginning was clearly indicative of an attempt on the part of
the Respondent-Contemnor to hold on to the possession of the said
Property. Despite the Settlement Agreement, which has attained
2714 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
finality by virtue of not being challenged, to retain the possession of
the said Property, Respondent-Contemnor has constantly litigated
across forums. Such an act on part of the Respondent-Contemnor
clearly showed that without making payment of the amount due to
the petitioners, he was reaping the fruits of the scheduled property
in violation of the terms of settlement.
18. Had it not been a viable preposition, the possession could have been
easily handed over by the Respondent-Contemnor. Having taken
benefit of the said Property, Respondent-Contemnor cannot be now
permitted to take the plea of penury. Rather, it is an intentional non-
compliance of the directions issued by this Court even after partial
monetary benefit had been conferred upon him vide Order dated
07.11.2022. Even till date no payment whatsoever has been made
which clearly reflects the malafide of the Respondent-Contemnor.
A reference is also made to the Order dated 04.02.2022 when
status quo was ordered by this Court in relation to the property in
question to be maintained. Prayer has thus been made for punishing
the Respondent-Contemnor for having committed contempt of this
Court’s Order dated 07.11.2022.
19. Having considered the submissions made by the counsels for the
parties, we are of the considered view that the Respondent-Contemnor
has deliberately and with malafide intention, not only mislead and
misused the process of the courts but has also intentionally violated
the order passed by this Court on 07.11.2022 by not making the
payment as directed therein.
20. At the prospect of reiteration of the factual matrix, the conduct of
the Respondent-Contemnor since the Settlement Agreement reflects
his patent intent to retain the said Property and this indicates that
the business proposition was not only a viable one but was yielding
profits. No person with a modest business acumen would continue
with a loss-causing endeavour. Respondent-Contemnor has nowhere
reflected the receipts from the business being undertaken in the
said Property.
21. Subsequently, he even sought time from the Execution Court, but
failed to comply, prompting an order for delivery of possession of
the said Property. This, he then challenged through Revision Petition
before the High Court of Kerala and ultimately before this Court
through the main Petition.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2715
M/s Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association v. Shaji Augustine
22. It was on his insistence that this Court ordered status quo vide Order
dated 04.02.2022. However, he neither paid the dues nor complied
with the subsequent Order dated 07.11.2022 mandating payment of
INR 12 lakhs per month from 20.09.2021 and arrears in instalments.
23. The e-mail dated 17.11.2022, which was addressed to the Petitioner
Association by the Respondent-Contemnor, seeking account
details for the concerned amount to be transferred, was responded
accordingly by the Petitioner Association vide e-mail dated 26.11.2022.
Despite all this, not even a rupee was credited to the account of the
Petitioner Association.
24. Faced with this situation, Petitioner Association had no option but
to file the instant Petition before this Court leading to issuance of
notice on 24.02.2023 along with an opportunity to the Respondent-
Contemnor to remedy the default. After various dates, the matter
ultimately came for hearing on 01.12.2023, when, owing to non-
compliance of Order dated 07.11.2022 for depositing money, the
main Petition was dismissed and the instant Petition survived.
25. It is only on 15.03.2024 that for the first time counsel for the
Respondent-Contemnor stated that he was not in a position to deposit
any amount, whereupon this Court called for details of his immovable
and movable assets and that of his immediate family members, along
with necessary documents. Physical presence of the Respondent-
Contemnor was also ordered in Court on the next date of hearing.
26. Respondent-Contemnor appeared through video conference in
Court on 12.07.2024 when the affidavit which was filed by the
respondent-contemnor was considered. On perusal thereof, Court
found the Respondent-Contemnor having committed a wilful breach
of the directions contained in the order dated 07.11.2022. He was,
therefore, called upon to face the said charge and with an intention
to give him an opportunity of being heard. The matter was listed for
hearing with a direction to the contemnor to personally remain present
before the Court. The contemnor was heard in person in Court and
was again given an opportunity to comply with the order of which
he had committed contempt i.e. non-payment of the amount and the
arrears. The contemnor did not express any remorse nor showed
any intention to comply with the order passed by this Court rather
asserted that he was not in a position to make any payment. It is in
these circumstances that the matter is being considered.
2716 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
27. The e-mail dated 17.11.2022 intrinsically reflects financial capability
and liquidity at hands of the Respondent-Contemnor. Had the
Respondent-Contemnor been in dire financial difficulty, the said
communication would not have come to the fore. Besides, had it
been that the Respondent-Contemnor was unable to comply with
the Order dated 07.11.2022 he should have moved this Court for
modification or withdrawal of the order.
28. All throughout, the Respondent-Contemnor had been in possession of
the said Property and had been utilising the income generated from
running of the said resort. Acceptance on the part of the Respondent-
Contemnor with regard to the viability of the project is apparent from
the Order dated 07.11.2022 and his conduct. This would not permit
the Respondent-Contemnor to now turn around and state that he is
unable to make payment of not only the monthly dues for use and
occupation charges after passing of the Order dated 07.11.2022 but
also the arrears as per which terms and conditions were fixed by this
Court in accordance with the prayer made by him. Non-fulfilment of
the mandate and direction of this Court which were at the request
of the Respondent-Contemnor himself reflects the intent on the part
of the Respondent-Contemnor to not to comply with the order rather
to violate with the same with impunity. The conduct clearly reflects
that the intention of the Respondent-Contemnor was to gain the
benefit by running the resort in the subject property without paying
the current liability, what to say of the arrears.
29. Moreover, the amount which has been earned from the resort being
run by the Respondent-Contemnor has not been accounted for. It can
therefore easily be said that there has been intentional and deliberate
non-compliance on the part of the Respondent-Contemnor of the
order passed by this Court, contempt of which stands committed,
but on getting an interim order of continuing in possession usurped
the earnings instead of paying off the dues.
30. The malafide is therefore writ large and reflect the misuse of the
process of the Court. After seeking an order from this Court where
benefit has been conferred on the basis of the submissions of
the Respondent-Contemnor, not complying therewith amounts to
contempt of Court.
31. The power and jurisdiction of this Court to initiate and punish for
its contempt has not been disputed. It is well settled by now and it
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2717
M/s Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association v. Shaji Augustine
is apparent from the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act that
Civil contempt means wilful disobedience of judgment, decree, or
direction, order, writ or other process of the Court or wilful breach
of an undertaking given to the Court.
32. Civil contempt, as is apparent from Section 2(b) of the Contempt
of Court Act 1971, means a wilful disobedience of any judgment,
direction or order passed by the Court. All through, as has been
detailed above, the intention on the part of the Respondent-Contemnor
was to use the judicial proceedings for his advantage taking undue
benefit at the peril and cost of wrong assertions and submissions
put forth before the Court which would amount to misleading the
Court into believing the bonafide at the hands of the Respondent-
Contemnor. It would amount to an attempt to exploit the procedural
process of Court to outreach and manoeuvre it resulting in abuse
of law and legal proceedings.
33. Any person who misuses the process of the Court with ulterior motives
cannot be said to be a person having approached the Court with
clean hands. A person who tries to tarnish the process of litigation
to the extent of misguiding and misleading the proceedings before
the Court resulting in passing of order(s) which are to his benefit at
the cost of the loss of dignity, leading to shrinkage of the faith of the
common man in the judicial process cannot be permitted.
34. This Court, in Hira Lal Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 in paras 9
and 10 held as follows:
"9. It should no doubt be constantly borne in mind that
the summary jurisdiction exercised by the superior
courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists
for the purpose of preventing interference with the
course of justice and for maintaining the authority
of law as is administered in the court and thereby
affording protection to public interest in the purity
of the administration of justice. This is certainly
an extraordinary power which must be sparingly
exercised but where the public interest demands it,
the court will not shrink from exercising it and imposing
1 (1954) 2 SCC 325
2718 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
punishment even by way of imprisonment, in cases
where a mere fine may not be adequate.
10. After anxious consideration we have come to the
conclusion that in all the circumstances of this case
it is a fit case where the power of the Court should
be exercised and that it is necessary to impose the
punishment of imprisonment. People must know
that they cannot with impunity hinder or obstruct
or attempt to hinder or obstruct the due course of
administration of justice.”
35. Further, in Bank of India v. Vijay Transport And Others2, this
Court with reference to Section 2 & 12 of Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 held that the jurisdiction so conferred is to be exercised after
having come to the conclusion and satisfaction with regard to the
commission of contempt. This Court further went on to hold that
the said satisfaction can be derived by the Court with regard to the
commission of the contempt from the circumstances of the case. The
conduct of the party who/which is facing the charge of contempt, not
only after the issuance of the notice but prior thereto, could also be
taken into consideration.
36. A party, misguiding the Court to pass an order which was never
intended to be complied with, would constitute an act of overawing
the due process of law and, thus, commit contempt of Court. In the
instant case, the opportunity having been availed, time having been
sought and granted by the Court further reflects the intent on the
part of the Respondent-Contemnor to discard and tarnish the judicial
process by polluting it. Disobedience of the order of the Court in such
circumstances would be the only result and thus, civil contempt.
37. The pure stream of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted at all.
Reference at this stage needs to be made to the latest decision of
this Court in Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain3
wherein in para 1 to 3 it has been held as follows:-
“Disregarding a Court’s order may seem bold, but the
shadows of its consequences are long and cold.”
2 (2000) 8 SCC 512
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2493
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2719
M/s Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association v. Shaji Augustine
1. Contempt of court is a serious legal infraction that
strikes at the very soul of justice and the sanctity
of legal proceedings. It goes beyond from mere
defiance of a Court’s authority, but also denotes a
profound challenge to the principles that underpin the
rule of law. At its core, it is a profound disavowal of
the respect and adherence to the judicial process,
posing a concerning threat to integrity of judicial
system. When a party engages in contempt, it does
more than simply refusing to comply with a Court’s
order. By failing to adhere to judicial directives, a
contemnor not only disrespects the specific order, but
also directly questions the Court’s ability to uphold
the rule of law. It erodes the public confidence in
the judicial system and it’s ability to deliver justice
impartially and effectively. Therefore, power to punish
for Contempt of Court’s order is vital to safeguard
the authority and efficiency of the judicial system. By
addressing and penalizing contemptuous conduct,
the legal system reinforces its own legitimacy and
ensures that judicial orders and proceedings are taken
seriously. This deterrent effect helps to maintain the
rule of law and reinforces public’s faith in the judicial
process, ensuring that Courts can function effectively
without undue interference or disrespect.
2. Contempt powers are integral to maintaining the
sanctity of judicial proceedings. The ability to address
contempt ensures that the authority of the court
is respected and that the administration of justice
is not hampered by willful disobedience. In the
said context, the power of this Court to punish for
contempt is a cornerstone of its authority, integral
to the administration of justice and the maintenance
of its own dignity. Enshrined in Article 129 of the
Constitution of India, this power is essential for
upholding the rule of law and ensuring due compliance
by addressing actions that undermine its authority,
obstruct its proceedings, or diminish the public trust
and confidence in the judicial system.
2720 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3. The Courts ordinarily take lenient approach in a case
of some delay in compliance of the orders, unless
the same is deliberate and willful, on confronting
the conduct of the contemnor that strikes the very
heart of judicial authority. Undoubtedly, this appalling
breach of legal decorum has in its face challenged
the sanctity of the orders passed by this Court and
hence we are constrained to examine Contemnor/
tenant’s willful and deliberate act of non-compliance
of the order and also the undertaking furnished by
him as directed.”
38. The above principles and the observations, as made by this Court,
would fully apply to the case at hand where, from the very beginning
till the very end the Respondent-Contemnor has been taking the
Court for a ride. The misuse of the process of Court with an intent
to tarnish the image of judiciary, threatening the integrity, and the
efficiency of the judicial system cannot be allowed to be overlooked
and ignored in the garb of non-fulfilment of the directions because
of now said to be faced financial constraints.
39. The Respondent-Contemnor cannot be allowed to go scot free after
having taken this Court at a stage where his conduct leaves this
Court with no option but to take strict action and to punish him for
the contempt committed by him, i.e., non-compliance of the directions
issued by this Court vide Order dated 07.11.2022.
40. This case, in our opinion, would not be one where mere imposition
of fine would suffice. In the given facts and circumstances of the
present case, we are convinced that the Respondent-Contemnor is
liable to be punished for the contumacious conduct.
41. We, in the above facts and circumstances, hold Shaji Augustine-
Respondent, guilty of Civil Contempt and impose punishment of
Simple Imprisonment for three months along with fine of INR 20,000/-
to be deposited in two weeks, and in case of default, further Simple
Imprisonment for one month.
42. Giving one more opportunity to the Respondent-Contemnor to
purge the contempt, 30 days time is granted to him to comply with
the Order dated 07.11.2022 and submit compliance report to the
Registrar Judicial of this Court a week thereafter. The punishment, as
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2721
M/s Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association v. Shaji Augustine
aforesaid, would come into effect in case the directions as contained
in the Order dated 07.11.2022 are not complied with, within 30 days
of the pronouncement of this judgment. The contempt proceedings
are disposed of.
43. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Contempt proceedings disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Contempt of Court"Sign in to search