Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in Lavanya C. & Anr. v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deceased By Lrs. & Ors., reinforced the principle that an undertaking given to a court must be honoured. The judgment highlights that violating such an undertaking not only weakens judicial authority but also invites contempt proceedings. The case involved a dispute where the appellants alienated property in breach of an undertaking given to the court, leading to a High Court ruling that held them guilty of contempt.

Facts in a Nutshell
The dispute arose from a Joint Development Agreement dated 30th April 2004 for the construction of residential apartments. The agreement stipulated that construction would be completed within 24 months, but delays led to litigation. The plaintiffs filed Original Suit No. 4191 of 2007, seeking a declaration that the JDA stood revoked and terminated.

During the proceedings, on 11th July 2007 and 13th August 2007, the appellants’ advocate gave an undertaking before the trial court that the defendants would not alienate the suit property. On 17th November 2007, the trial court converted this undertaking into an enforceable order, which was extended periodically. However, despite this, the appellants executed multiple sale deeds between 2007 and 2011, leading to contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

The trial court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the respondents had not proved the alleged breach beyond reasonable doubt. However, the High Court overturned this decision, found the appellants guilty of contempt, imposed a sentence of civil imprisonment, and ordered compensation. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Contentions of the Appellants
The appellants argued before the Supreme Court that:

• Their advocate had given the undertaking without their express authority, making it unenforceable against them.
• The High Court’s finding of contempt was incorrect as there was no clear evidence of willful disobedience.
• They had tendered an unconditional apology, showing no intent to disregard the court’s orders.
• The sentence of civil imprisonment was excessive, particularly given the age and health condition of one of the appellants.

Contentions of the Respondents
The respondents contended that:

• The undertaking given by the advocate was binding, as it had been recorded in court proceedings and extended multiple times.
• The appellants had ample opportunity over the years to challenge the undertaking if they believed it was unauthorized, but they failed to do so.
• The High Court rightly found that the alienation of the property despite the undertaking constituted willful contempt of court.

Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that the appellants had committed contempt by violating their undertaking to the court. The Court made the following key observations:

• Binding Nature of an Undertaking Given to a Court
  • The Court reaffirmed that an undertaking made by an advocate on behalf of a client carries legal weight.
  • Referring to Kokkanda B. Poondacha v. K.D. Ganapathi (2011) 12 SCC 600 and Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373, the Court ruled that an advocate’s duty is fiduciary in nature and that the client is bound by commitments made in court unless expressly repudiated in time.
• Contempt and the Need to Maintain Judicial Authority
  • The Supreme Court stressed that contempt jurisdiction exists to protect the dignity of judicial orders.
  • Citing Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, the Court held that willful disobedience of court orders justifies contempt proceedings.
  • The Court found that the appellants’ delay in challenging the undertaking showed a lack of good faith.
• Modification of Sentence
  • Considering that Appellant No. 1 was of advanced age (68 years), the Court modified the High Court’s order by removing the three-month civil imprisonment.
  • However, the Court enhanced the compensation payable from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 13 lakhs with interest at 6% per annum from 2nd August 2013.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that commitments made to a court must be honoured, failing which contempt proceedings will follow. The ruling also highlights the fiduciary duty of advocates in making undertakings on behalf of clients. While the Court acknowledged mitigating circumstances in modifying the punishment, it upheld the High Court’s finding of contempt, ensuring that judicial authority remains intact.¹

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar