The Court can order the deposit of Passport in order to endure the presence of the parties in contempt proceedings

Lisa Coutinho | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 20th March 2020

Shyam Sahni v. Arjun Prakash & Ors. Civil Appela No. 2210 od 2020

Facts of the case:

The appellant found out that Respondent No.1, along with another person had executed documents purporting to be sale deeds and other documents in their favour or in favour of other persons qua first and second floor and terrace of the residential building belonging to the appellant’s mother. Thus, the appellant filed a civil suit before the High Court seeking declaration, possession and permanent injunction, and also partition. A registered will was made by the appellant’s mother diving equal shares between her son and daughter. Later, an Irrevocable Memorandum of Family Settlement was signed between the appellant and the mother of Respondent No.1, which was confirmed by the appellant’s mother, thus dividing 50% of the undivided share in the plot of land between her son and daughter. Thus, one part of the property was given to the appellant and another to the Respondent’s mother. The Respondent’s mother had sold some flats to her husband. The husband’s company had taken a loan from a bank of India and an equitable mortgage was created on the first floor. Later the company’s account was declared as NPA by the Bank and the bank took possession of the first floor and also filed an order before the DRT. The Single Judge granted interim injunction restraining the defendants from selling, altering or creating any third-party rights on the property. Aggrieved by the defendant’s disobedience of injunction order, the appellant filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC read with section 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. The judge held them guilty. Noting non-compliance of order, breach of repeated undertakings and absence on the date of hearing, the Court restrained respondent 1 from leaving the country and directed him to deposit his passport. Respondent 1 thus approached the High Court and the court held that restriction like passport retention could not be imposed on him. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Issues raised:

1. Whether Respondent No.1 is to be proceeded for contempt.
2. Whether the learned Judge was right in directing the deposit of the first respondent’s passport.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court stated that it cannot be said that the Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction or committed an error in ordering the surrender of the passport. It held that in order to ensure the presence of the parties in the contempt proceedings, the Court is empowered to pass appropriate orders including the surrender of passport. Thus, the judgement of the High Court cannot be sustained.

In view of the order of the High Court, the contempt petition has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge and prayed for restoration of the contempt petition. Much of the court’s time has been spent on the interim orders and on the contempt petition, therefore, the court took the view that they are not inclined to issue direction for restoration of the contempt petition.

The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and this appeal is allowed. In order to ensure the presence of Respondent No.1 and to ensure further progress of the trial, the order of the Judge directing the deposit of the passport stands confirmed. The learned Single judge is requested to take up the civil suit and continue the trial and dispose the same expeditiously preferably within the period of nine months.