ivil Appeal No 1778 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 571988 of the Bombay High Court in Contempt Petition No 106 of 1987
P Chidambaram Ms Raian Karanjawala Mrs Manish Karanjawala and Mrs Meenakshi Arora for the Appellant
KS Cooper K Parasaran Anil B Divan AS Bhasme PH Parekh Sunil Dogra Gopal Subramaniam Ms Indu Malho tra for the Respondents
383 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
Leave granted
The appeal is taken up for final hearing
Counsel heard
The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows The appellant is the owner of a Bungalow known as Villa Hormazd at 8 A Carmichel Road Bombay
The suit premises comprising two floors of the said bungalow were leased to Mayer Mills Ltd under a lease deed dated April 16 1948 for a period of three years from November 1 1947
At that time the bungalow belonged to the father of the appellant
On the death of the father of the appellant in 1949 the appellant became the landlady of the said bungalow
Respondent No 1 B R
Cotton Mills
Ltd is the successor in interest of Mayer Mills Ltd and at the relevant time was in possession of the suit premises as a tenant
Respondent No 2 is the Chairman of respondent No 1 and the other respondents are some of the Directors of respondent No 1
The appellant filed a suit being RAE No 763 6563 of 1966 in the Small Causes Court at Bombay for eviction of respondent No 1 from the suit premises and for possession on the ground of rea sonable and bona fide requirement
During the pendency of this suit another suit for eviction was also filed by the appellant against respondent No 1 for eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent for a period of more than six months
The Trial Court by its judgment dated September 13 1975 decreed the aforesaid eviction suit RAE No 7636563 of 1966 hereinafter referred to as the said suit but the other suit for eviction filed by the appellant was dismissed in view of the eviction decree passed in the said suit
Respondents nos
1 and 2 filed an appeal against the decree for eviction but the said appeal was dismissed
In February 1986 the husband of the appel lant died and after that the appellant is the landlady of the said bungalow
On the other hand the appeal of the appellant against the dismissal of her other suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent was allowed and that suit was also decreed against respondent No 1
The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court at Bombay challenging the decrees for eviction passed by the Court of Small Causes as aforestated
On February 27 1987 respondent No 2 filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes for a declaration that he was the lawful sub tenant of the suit premises and was not bound by the decrees of eviction passed in respect of the suit premises against the tenant namely respondent No 1
The said Writ Petition 384 No 1066 of 1987 filed by respondent No 1 challenging the decrees for eviction passed against respondent No 1 in the said suits and confirmed in appeal came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on March 5 1983
The learned Judge by his judgment and order of the same date dismissed the said writ petition
The relevant part of the order of the learned Judge reads as follows The petitioner requests for time of eight weeks to vacate the premises
He is granted the said time subject to execut ing written undertaking that he shall not part with the possession of the suit premises or create third party inter ests in the suit premises in the meantime in any manner whatsoever   On March 11 1987 the matter was brought up again before the learned Single Judge by learned counsel for the appellant for pointing out that respondent No 1 had not filed the requisite undertaking as directed under the order dated 53
It appears that at that stage it was point ed out to the Court by Mr Dalvi learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No 2 had filed a declaratory suit in the Court of Small Causes as aforestated claiming to be the sub tenant of the suit premises
The order of the learned Judge dated March 11 1987 shows that the learned Judge stated that he did not wish to take any action at that time on the conduct of respondent No 1 but as a last chance granted respondent No 1 time upto March 17 1987 for furnishing the undertaking as ordered failing which it would be deemed that the condition was not fulfilled
Re spondent No 3 as a Director of respondent No 1 by his affidavit affirmed on March 17 1987 gave an undertaking merely stating that respondent No 1 would not commit any act contrary to or in breach of the order dated March 5 1987
It was pointed out by the appellant that this under taking was not in compliance with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge
After some correspondence respondent No 3 by his affidavit affirmed on March 25 1987 filed an undertaking on behalf of respondent No 1 inter alia stating that respondent No 1 would not part with the possession of suit premises or create any third party interest in the suit premises in any manner whatsoever
The undertaking did not state that respondent No 1 had not before the undertaking was given parted with the possession of the suit premises or created any third party interest therein
When the matter came up on March 31 1987 before the learned Single Judge who had given time to respondent no 1 to vacate as afore stated it was pointed out by learned counsel for the appel lant that the undertaking was objected to as it did not state that 385 respondent No 1 was in possession
Thereupon Shri RJ Joshi learned counsel for respondent No 1 Company stated that the undertaking spoke for itself and when it stated that respondent shall not part with possession it meant that respondent No 1 company was in possession
In view of this the learned Judge did not give any further clarifica tion
Respondent No 1 preferred a special leave petition to this court against the judgment of the learned Judge dis missing the said writ petition but the said special leave petition was dismissed
Thereafter the suit filed by re spondent No 2 in the Court of Small Causes for a declara tion that he was the lawful sub tenant of the suit premises was dismissed but he preferred an appeal against the said decision and in that appeal obtained an interim injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his posses sion of the suit premises
In view of this the decree for eviction could not be executed
Thereafter in June 1987 the appellant filed Contempt Petition No 106 of 1987 in the Bombay High Court setting out the facts and praying that the respondents should be punished under the provisions of the 
It has been inter alia alleged in the contempt petition by the appellant that in spite of the said undertaking respondent No 2 had filed a suit being suit no2911 of 1987 in the City Civil Court at Bombay claiming a declaration that the decree for possession was a nullity and for an injunction restraining the appellant from executing the decree and obtained an ad interim injunction a few days after the summary dismissal of the special leave petitions filed by the respondents in this Court as afore stated
The said suit was thereafter dismissed for non prosecution but in the meantime respondent No 2 filed the suit in the Court of Small Causes for a declaration that he was the lawful sub tenant of the premises as aforestated
It was submitted by the appellant in the contempt petition that the said undertaking given by respondent No 1 clearly implied that on the date of the undertaking respondent No 1 was in possession of the suit premises and in order to defeat the decree for possession respondent No 1 had set up its Chairman respondent No 2 to file the aforesaid suit in the Court of Small Causes claiming sub tenancy
It was further submitted by the appellant that although re spondent No 1 continued to be in possession of the suit premises it had set up respondent No 2 to file the suit on the ground that he was in possession of the suit premises as a sub tenant in his own right and continued to be in posses sion thereof
The learned Judge before whom the said con tempt petition came up for hearing took the view that in the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 5 1987 he was unable to read any direction to file an undertaking to give possession
He took the view that the aforesaid under taking given on behalf of respondent No 1 that it would not with possession or create any third party interest in the suit premises did not imply that respondent No 1 was in actual physical possession of the suit premises and that the fact that respondent No 2 was claiming an independent title in himself as a sub tenant by virtue of a Resolution of respondent No 1 was not sufficient to hold that respondent No 1 or the other respondents were guilty of contempt
He took the view that there was no undertaking by respondent No 1 to deliver possession of the suit premises and on the basis of these conclusions he rejected the contempt peti tion
At the same time the learned Judge did observe that respondent No 1 may have indulged in sharp practices but held that it was not guilty of contempt
The present appeal is directed against this order
It was submitted by Mr Chidambaram learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No 1 and respondent No 2 were guilty of contempt and the learned Single Judge was in error when he took the view that no contempt was established in the matter against the respondents
It was submitted by learned counsel that on 5th March 1987 when the writ peti tion preferred by respondent No 1 was summarily rejected by Justice Puranik of the Bombay High Court learned counsel for respondent No 1 on instructions made an application to the learned Judge to grant respondent No 1 time for eight weeks to vacate the suit premises
This time was granted subject to respondent No 1 executing an undertaking that he would not part with the possession of the premises or create third party interests therein as set out earlier
After delaying the matter for some time respondent No 3 filed on March 25 1987 an affidavit as a director of respondent No 1 wherein he set out inter alia that respond ent No 1 agreed to give an undertaking as set out earlier as respondent No 1 was desirous of approaching the Supreme Court to challenge the order of the learned Judge dismissing the writ petition
It was submitted by Mr Chidambaram that this undertaking clearly implied that respondent No 1 was in possession of the premises and was in a position to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises after eight weeks if the special leave petitions preferred by respondent No 1 were dismissed or no interim relief was obtained thereunder
This undertaking was taken note of by Justice Puranik when the case reached before him on March 31 1987
It appears that an objection was taken to the language of the said undertaking on the ground that it did not state that respondent No 1 was in possession of the suit premises and thereupon Mr RJ Joshi learned counsel for respondent No 1 stated that the undertaking spoke for itself and that when it stated that respondent No 1 shall not part with the possession of the suit premises it 387 meant that respondent No 1 was in possession of the prem ises
It was submitted that this statement must have been made after taking proper instructions and that by instruct ing its counsel to make the statement respondent No 1 had clearly attempted to mislead the Court and the appellant
It was urged that m any event this undertaking clearly im plied that if no interim order was obtained by respondent No 1 from this Court respondent No 1 would hand over the possession of the premises to the appellant
This assuranceundertaking was false to the knowledge of the appellant as by that time respondent No 2 had already filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes claiming sub tenancy from respondent No 1 and had obtained an interim ex parte injunction restraining the appellant from executing the decree in her favour
It was submitted that the record discloses that respondent Nos 1 and 2 were acting in collu sion with a view to defeat the decree obtained by the appel lant and to prevent the execution of the decree
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the resolution of respondent No 1 under which respondent No 2 was claiming sub tenancy was fabricated and antedated
It was on the other hand contended by Mr Cooper learned counsel for respondent No 1 that no contempt was made out by the appellant in the matter
He vehemently argued that the case for taking action in contempt set up by the appellant was one of civil contempt
Under the provisions of sub clause b of section 2 of the  in order to establish civil contempt the alleged contemner must be proved to be guilty of wilful disobedience to any judgment decree direction order writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertak ing given to a court
He drew our attention to the statement contained in Halsbury s Laws of England Volume 9 IVth Edition at para 66 page 40 that the court will only punish as a contempt a breach of injunction if satisfied that the terms of the injunction are clear and unambiguous that the defendant has proper
notice of the terms and that breach of the injunction has been proved beyond reasonable doubt
It was further submitted by him that there is no such thing in law as an implied contempt
Learned counsel urged that in the present case there was no mandatory injunction or order given by the court to the effect that respondent No 1 must vacate the premises after eight weeks from 5th March when the undertaking was agreed to be given
It was submitted that even if a view was taken that in these circumstances respondent No 1 must be held to have given an undertaking to give possession of the said suit premises to the appellant after the said period of eight weeks there was no wilful breach on the part of respondent No 1 in not complying with that undertaking as 388 it was respondent No 2 who was claiming to be in possession of the said premises in his independent right as a lawful sub tenant and it was he who had obtained an interim injunc tion from the Small Causes Court
It was urged by learned counsel that so far as respondent No 2 was concerned he had not given any personal undertaking to the court
It was submitted by learned counsel for all the respondents that before a court could take any action for contempt it must be strictly established that the contempt had been proved beyond reasonable doubt as an action for contempt was in the nature of a criminal proceeding
Mr Cooper drew our attention to the decision of this Court in The Aligarh Municipal Board  Ors
vs Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and Others 1970 3 SCC p 98 wherein it has been held that In order to bring home a charge of contempt of Court for disobeying orders of Courts those who assert that the alleged contemners had knowledge of the order must prove that fact beyond reasonable doubt
In case of doubt however benefit ought to go to the person charged He further relied upon the decision of this Court in Babu Ram Gupta vs Sudhir Bhasin  Anr 1979 3 SCR p 685 wherein a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court held that it is not open to the Court to assume an implied undertaking when there is none on the record
 We now propose to examine the facts appearing on the record in the light of the aforesaid submissions and deci sions
What we do find on the record is that when the writ petitions filed by respondent No 1 in the High Court were dismissed by Puranik J by his order dated 5th March 1987 learned counsel for respondent No 1 applied for time for eight weeks to vacate the premises and the learned Judge gave the said time to respondent No 1 to vacate the prem ises subject to its filing a written undertaking that it would not part with the possession of the suit premises or create third party interest in the suit premises
It may be that time to vacate was applied for as respondent No 1 desired to file an appeal to the Supreme Court
The fact however remains that if the claim of respondent No 2 is correct on that day he was already a lawful sub tenant of the suit premises and occupying the same
Respondent No 2 was none other than the Chairman of respondent No 1 compa ny
It is therefore inconceivable that respondent No 1 could have been unaware of the claim of respondent No 2
It is therefore apparent that respondent No 1 clearly tried to mislead the court when it gave instructions through its officers to learned counsel appearing for respondent No 1 to apply for time to vacate the premises and remained silent when time was given on the condition that a written under taking as aforestated would be filed suppressing from the 389 court the fact that respondent No 2 claimed to be the sub tenant of the said premises and we have no doubt that re spondent No 2 must have been a party to this course of action
After some hesitation the written undertaking was filed as aforestated which clearly implied that respondent No 1 was in possession of the suit premises and in a posi tion to hand over possession of the suit premises to the appellant after the period of eight weeks expired
Respond ents Nos 1 and 2 knew fully well that this was not possible unless respondent No 2 gave up his claim which he had no intention of doing
Further on March 31 1987 learned counsel for respondent No 1 appeared in court and stated that the undertaking spoke for itself and when it stated that respondent No 1 would not part with the possession of the premises it meant that respondent No 1 was in fact in possession thereof
As we have already pointed out respond ent No 2 was and continued to be the Chairman of respondent No 1 his nephew Prem Kumar Gupta who was residing in the said premises in 1973 according to the evidence given by him in the Court of Small Causes was a Director of respond ent no 1 company
After all respondent No 1 is a company and it can have no knowledge or intention other than the knowledge and intention of the people who control it
We have no doubt at all that it was respondent No 2 who along with some of his family members was in full charge of the affairs of respondent No 1 company
In these circumstances it appears clear to us that all the actions taken by the legal advisors and counsel of respondent No 1 including in particular the giving of the aforesaid undertaking as well as the clarification given by learned counsel regarding the meaning of that undertaking as aforestated were with the fullest knowledge and consent of respondent No 2
It is impossible to maintain this dichotomy for the purposes of the contempt petition between respondent No 1 and respond ent No 2
Respondent No 2 knew fully well when he autho rised the giving of the undertaking on behalf of respondent No 1 or consented to its being given that respondent No 1 was in no position to hand over possession of the suit premises in execution of the decree because respondent No 2 claimed to be in possession of the said premises and claimed subtenancy rights in the same and had no intention whatsoev er of giving up the claim
In fact the entire course of conduct adopted on behalf of respondent No 1 was only with one aim in view and that was to frustrate or to at least delay indefinitely the execution of the decree which the appellant had obtained after the lapse of many years and after such sustained and lengthy legal proceedings which must have caused the appellant considerable expenses and anguish
It is significant that till Mr RJ Joshi the learned counsel who gave the clarification in respect of the said undertaking was alive no contention was ever 390 raised that the clarification was given by him without taking instructions or that respondent No 1 or respondent No 2 were not aware of the same
It was only after the sudden demise of the learned counsel that this contention was first raised by respondent No 1
This conduct speaks volumes for the dishonest attitude adopted by respondents nos
1 and 2
Raising this contention after the death of Mr RJ Joshi can only be regarded as one more of the tricks which respondents nos
1 and 2 have played throughout the case in order to defeat and delay the execution of the decree for possession against respondent No 1
In the circumstances set out earlier although the learned Judge of the High Court might have felt constrained by what he considered to be the limits of his jurisdiction in a contempt proceeding we feel that our hands are not so tied and where there is patent dishonesty on the part of respondents Nos 1 and 2 writ large on the face of the record the law does not require that we should sit back with folded hands and fail to take any action in the matter
We find that under clause 1 of Article 142 of the Constitution it is provided that this court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforced throughout the territory of India in the manner set out therein
In the circumstances which we have already set out earlier we are of the view that re spondent No 1 is guilty of misconduct amounting to contempt and must be held to have committed contempt by giving the said undertaking and instructing its counsel to give the clarification of the meaning of the said undertaking as aforestated knowing fully well that it was not in possession of the suit premises and was not in a position to give possession of the suit premises to the appellant in execu tion of the decree in favour of the appellant or otherwise
It is significant that the claim of sub tenancy set up by respondent No 2 is pursuant to an alleged resolution of respondent No 1
We have also no doubt that respondent No 2 was a party to this breach of the undertaking being com mitted and in fact it was he at whose instance respondent No 1 committed the breach of the undertaking as aforestat ed
We are of course quite conscious of the fact that the proceedings in the contempt are quasi criminal in nature that the law of contempt has to be strictly interpreted and that the requirements of that law must be strictly complied with before any person can be committed for contempt
Howev er as we have pointed out respondent No 1 gave an under taking based on an implication or assumption which was false to its knowledge and to the knowledge of respondent 391 No 2
Respondent No 2 was equally instrumental in the giving of this undertaking
This implication or assumption was made explicit by the clarification given by the learned counsel for respondent No 1 as set out earlier
Respondent No 2 was equally responsible for instructing counsel to give this clarification which was false to the knowledge of both respondents Nos 1 and 2
Both respondent No 1 and respondent No 2 have tried to deceive the Court and the appellant
In view of this we fail to see how it can be said that they are not guilty of contempt
Even assuming that a view were to be taken that no contempt has been technically established against respondents Nos 1 and 2 with which view we do not agree we cannot allow the matter to rest there and fail to take any action and in particular we cannot allow respondents Nos 1 and 2 to thwart the execution of the decree in this manner at this stage and continue to remain in possession of the suit premises
We find some support for the course of action which we are taking from the decision of this Court in Noorali Babul Thanewala vs Sh
KMM Shetty and others JT where on facts which bear some similarity to the facts of this case a Division Bench of this Court held that it is settled law that breach of an injunction or breach of an undertaking given to a court by a person in a civil proceeding on the faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action is misconduct amounting to contempt
 At the same time we are conscious of the fact that we cannot altogether foreclose the claim set up by respondent No 2 in the declaratory suit filed by him in the Court of Small Causes to establish that he is a sub tenant of the suit premises and entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rents Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947
However we are firmly of the view that by reason of any interim order obtained in that suit and till that claim is finally established the appellant can no longer be deprived of the possession of the said premises pursuant to the decree for eviction obtained by her
All the necessary parties to that suit are before us and have had and adequate opportunity to be heard
In these circumstances we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and pass in its place the following order The Court Receiver High Court of Bombay who has already been appointed by our order dated January 25 1990 shall take possession of the suit premises from the present agent and shall appoint the appellant as his agent in respect of the suit premises and hand over possession to the appellant of the suit premises on such terms and conditions as the Court Receiver may think fit but with the limitation 392 that the royalty for use and occupation of the suit premises shall be limited to the actual outgoings plus a sum of Rs200 per month in order to meet unforeseen contingencies
This order shall be complied with within a period of eight weeks from a copy of this order being served on the Court Receiver
It is clarified that the possession of the prem ises will be taken from whoever might be in possession thereof and if the Court Receiver finds any difficulty in obtaining possession he shall take the necessary assistance from the police authorities
It is further clarified that this order shall supersede any interim orders which might have been passed by the Court of Small Causes or the Bombay City Civil Court or any other Court excepting this Court
In the event of respondent No 2 being able to finally estab lish his right to the sub tenancy of the suit premises as claimed by him in the declaratory suit in the Court of Small Causes it shall be open to him to apply for vacation or variation of this order as he may be advised
Respondents Nos 1 and 2 to pay the appellant the costs of this appeal fixed at Rs20000 the liability for the payment of the said aggregate amount being joint and several as between respond ents Nos 1 and 2
As far as respondent No 3 is concerned we do not propose to take any action against him
NPV Appeal allowed


Summary:
The petitioner was detained under Section 31 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act by an order dated 1371989
The facts lead ing to his arrest and detention are On 771989 officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelli gence New Delhi intercepted a Maruti Car in which one Mahesh Kumar Chauhan and three others were present
On search of the car no recovery was made on the spot but later on when the car was thoroughly rummaged in presence of two independ ent witnesses and the occupants of the car 206 foreign marked gold biscuits of ten tolas each were recovered from the cavities of the car meant for fitting speakers in the rear portion of the car
The occupants did not give any explanation for the possession of the
said gold biscuits
However on personal search of Mahesh a slip was recovered which contained a telephone number and Mahesh Kumar in his statement admitted that he was to hand over the smuggled goods to one Vijay Kumar
Mahesh Kumar admitted that he was visiting Dubai frequently to bring consumer goods and orna ments for being sold in the local market
According to him one Avtar Singh who was engaged in smuggling of foreign gold biscuits agreed to sell the gold biscuits to Mahesh Kumar on commission
He also gave some details about Avtar Singh
Similarly Vijay Kumar also made a statement
From these statements it is also revealed that petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal had made arrangements for selling the gold bis cuits
the residential premises of the petitioner was searched and he was taken into custody
The petitioner made a statement before the officers of the Directorate or Reve nue Intelligence
On the basis of the material the detaining authority passed an order of detention on 1371989 which was served on the petitioner on 2471989
The grounds of detention were also served on the petitioner in time
318 The petitioner challenged his detention by means of a writ petition before the Delhi High Court and having re mained unsuccessful he filed this petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the order of the Delhi High Court dismissing his writ petition
Before this Court two main points have been urged viz i that there is a total non application of mind by the detaining authority inasmuch as he has failed to note that the petitioner was in jail and that there was no possibili ty of his being released and the failure to consider this aspect on the part of the detaining authority renders his detention invalid and ii that the detaining authority has not applied his mind properly in rejecting his representa tion and that there was delay in serving the detention order on him
Dismissing the petition this Court HELD Whether an order of detention can be passed against a person who is in detention or in jail will always have to be determined in the circumstances of each case
No decision of this Court has gone to the extent of holding that no order of detention can validly be passed against a person in custody under any circumstances
326B Section 33 of the Act lays down that for the purpose of Article 225 of the Constitution the order should be served as soon as possible but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than fifteen days from the date of detention
320B In the instant case from the record it was submitted that it took quite sometime for translating the documents to Hindi and Gurmukhi and the Court is satisfied that there are valid and sufficient reasons for delay in serving the detention order
327C D Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs
SN Sinha Commisioner of Police Ahmedabad  Anr   Binod Singh vs District Magistrate Dhanbad   Vijay Kumar vs State of Jammu  Kashmir   Ramakrishna Rawat vs District Magistrate Jabalpur  Smt
Shashi Aggarwal vs State of UP  Ors   Ramesh Yadav vs District Magistrate Etah  Ors
  Rameshwar Shaw vs District Magistrate Burdwan   Alijan 319 Mian vs District Magistrate Dhanbad 1983 4 SCC 301 N Meera Rani vs Government of Tamil Nadu  Anr  Shri Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat etc
vs Union of India  Ors JT Sat Pal Man chanda vs
ML Wadhawan  Ors Crl
Writ No 333 of 1986 decided by Delhi High Court on 30101986