Hari Tulshiram Gholalp And Anr. vs Jitendra Rajaram Savant And Anr.
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-AS:21344
5-CP-488-2025.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 488 OF 2025
Swapnil
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6435 OF 2013
1) Dr. Hari Tulshiram Gholap, )
2) Dr. Prabiha Hari Gholap )
Both R/at: Vinayak Apartment, )
Sitafal Baug, Near Mati Ganpati )
Pune – 411 030. )..Petitioners
Vs.
1) Shri Jitendra Rajaram Savant, )
2) Shri Rajaram Yashwant Savant, )
Both R/at: Plot No. 17, Chintamani )
Apartment, Flat No. 6 & 10, Samarth )
Road, Madhuban Colony, S.No. 38/2, )
Opposite to State Bank of India, )
VARSHA
VIJAY
RAJGURU
Navsahyadri, Karvenagar, )
Digitally signed by
VARSHA VIJAY
RAJGURU
Date: 2026.05.05
20:52:21 +0530
Pune- 411052.
AND
Office Address: Hotel Sanman, )
1205/2/8, Shirole Road, Opposite )
Sambhaji Park, Off. Jangali Maharaj )
Road, Shivajinagar, Pune -411 004. )..Respondents
Mr. Girish Agrawal a/w. Ms. Chitra Darekar, Mr. Shubham
Jangam and Mr. Ranjeet Salunkhe for the petitioners.
1/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:13 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
Mr. Girish S. Godbole i/b. Mr. P. S. Gondhalekar, Mr. Ajay
Gadegaonkar for respondent no. 1 and 2.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
th
DATE : 4 MAY 2026
JUDGMENT :
FIRST SESSION
1. This contempt petition is filed by the original plaintiffs
nd
alleging willful breach of the order dated 2 May 2011,
passed in Spl. Summary Suit No. 207 of 2009 granting
conditional leave to defend on furnishing a solvent surety
th
equal to the claim amount, read with the order dated 10
October 2011, passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 8116
of 2011, confirming the order passed by the trial court.
2. As per the conditional leave granted, solvent surety
was submitted in respect of Gat No. 775 by submitting the
solvency certificate of respondent no.2. After submitting the
solvent surety, the written statement of respondent no.1 was
taken on record, and the suit proceeded for trial. Respondent
no.1 is the original defendant no.4 in the summary suit, and
respondent no. 2 is the father of defendant no.4, who had
submitted the solvency certificate for the solvent surety
2/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:13 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
offered on behalf of respondent no.1 (defendant no.4) as the
condition for leave to defend.
3. In breach of the solvent surety submitted to the court,
respondent no.2 has executed a registered sale deed dated
th
13 June 2023 in favour of the third party. Respondent no.1
has also signed the sale deed as a confirming party. There is
no dispute that, in breach of the solvent surety submitted in
the trial court, the respondents have executed the registered
th
sale deed. Hence, by order dated 17 October 2025, this
court recorded prima facie findings that there is a willful and
deliberate breach committed by the respondents of the order
nd
dated 2 May 2011 passed in Spl. Summary Suit No. 280 of
th
2009, order dated 10 October 2011, passed in Writ Petition
th
No. 8166 of 2011, and order dated 7 April 2014, passed in
Writ Petition No. 6435 of 2013.
4. The contempt notice is served upon the respondents,
and they have filed their affidavit-in-reply. The respondents
admit that, in breach of the solvent surety submitted, the sale
deed was executed. However, they have tendered an
unconditional apology with an explanation that since the
respondents were in financial need, they executed the sale
3/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:13 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
deed. They have stated that, in view of the facts and
circumstances explained in the affidavit, they lost track of the
orders passed by the court and proceeded to execute the
sale deed. The respondents have further contended that they
are agreeable to furnish a fresh solvent surety in respect of
some other property. It is also contended on behalf of the
respondents that they may either be permitted to replace the
solvent surety or to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,30,00,000/-,
which is the principal claim in the summary suit. Thus, it is
contended by the respondents that their unconditional
apology be accepted.
5. The contempt petitioners are the original plaintiffs who
have filed the summary suit for the claim of Rs. 2,30,00,000/-
th
with interest of 18% based on an agreement dated 11
February 2009 executed by the authorised partner of
defendant no.1, a partnership firm, in favour of the plaintiffs,
agreeing to pay compensation in lieu of the flats agreed to be
sold to the plaintiffs. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs
have paid a total of Rs. 46,50,000/- for purchasing two flats
in the project developed by defendant no. 1 firm. Defendant
no.4 is one of the partners of defendant no.1 partnership
4/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:13 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
firm. The plaintiffs have also pleaded that the defendants had
sold the flat allotted to the plaintiffs to a third party. Hence,
they had offered to return the amount with compensation of
Rs. 2,30,00,000/-.
6. In the said summary suit, the trial court had granted
nd
conditional leave to defend on 2 May 2011, subject to
furnishing a solvent surety equal to the claim amount, i.e.,
Rs. 2,30,00,000/-, with interest at 18%. This order was
challenged by respondent no.1 (defendant no.4) before this
th
court. By order dated 10 October 2011, the writ petition filed
by respondent no.1 was dismissed, and the time to furnish
surety was extended. The heirs and legal representatives of
original defendant no. 2 had challenged the order granting
conditional leave by filing a separate writ petition. The said
th
writ petition was disposed of on 7 April 2014. The order
granting conditional leave was modified to the extent of the
heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant
no.2 in view of the fact that defendant no.4 had already
furnished the solvent surety. By the said order, it was further
made clear that the order granting conditional leave would
continue to operate, and the suit would be tried as a
5/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:13 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
summary suit. It was further clarified that the said order
passed in the writ petition filed by heirs and legal
representatives of defendant no.2 should not be construed
by any party that defendant no.4 would be entitled to
withdraw the solvent surety already furnished. This order,
th
dated 7 April 2014, was passed after hearing defendant
no.4. Thus, respondent no.1 (defendant no.4) was fully
aware that the solvent surety furnished by him would
continue to operate during the pendency of the suit.
7. There is no dispute that both the respondents, with full
knowledge that the solvent surety would continue in the suit
as a condition for leave to defend, executed the sale deed. In
response to the contempt notice, respondents have filed the
th
affidavit-in-reply dated 6 December 2025. The respondents
have contended that, since respondent no. 2 is not a party to
the proceedings, the contempt petition would not lie against
him. It is further contended that when the writ petition filed by
the heirs and legal representatives of deceased defendant
th
no.2 was decided on 7 April 2014, it was directed that the
st
suit should be decided by 31 December 2015. Since the
time to decide the suit expired and the plaintiffs did not seek
6/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:13 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
any extension of time, all the interim orders stood vacated.
Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the commercial
division. However, the plaintiffs never applied for an
extension of time.
8. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, the
respondents have tendered an unconditional apology on the
ground that, inadvertently overlooking the orders passed in
the suit and this court, the sale deed was executed. The
respondents have explained that they suffered huge financial
loss, and respondent no.2, who is a senior citizen of about 91
years of age, had to undergo various medical treatments.
Hence, the respondents were constrained to sell the
property. They have also sought to explain that the advocate
who was looking after their affairs has expired. Hence, in
such circumstances, it was a bona fide mistake in executing
the sale deed.
9. It is further alleged in the affidavit-in-reply that the
plaintiffs are not interested in conducting the trial and are
trying to protract the hearing of the trial in view of the
inadvertent mistake of the respondents. The respondents
have filed a separate application for placing on record the
7/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
subsequent events. It is contended in the Interim Application
No. 2048 of 2026 that, after the land offered as a solvent
surety was sold, the purchaser has created further third-party
rights by converting the land into non-agricultural land and
subdividing it into numerous plots. Hence, it is contended
that it would not be possible to cancel the transaction entered
into in breach of the solvent surety offered to the court.
10. With these submissions, the learned senior counsel for
the respondents submitted that the unconditional apology
tendered by the respondents be accepted and the
respondents be permitted to either replace the solvent surety
or deposit the principal amount claimed in the suit. He further
relied upon the definition of civil contempt under Section 2(b)
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He also relies upon
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and submits
that in view of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section
12, an apology should not be rejected merely on the ground
that it is qualified or conditional if the mistake is bona fide.
He, therefore, submits that the sale deed executed by the
respondents would not amount to committing contempt that
can be punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of
8/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
Courts Act, 1971.
11. According to the learned senior counsel for the
respondents, the apology tendered by the respondents and
the willingness to replace the solvent surety, or to deposit the
principal amount, constitute a bona fide offer made by the
respondents. Hence, the unconditional apology coupled with
the willingness to replace the solvent surety be accepted,
and the contempt notice be discharged.
12. To support his submissions, learned senior counsel for
the respondents relies upon the decision of the Division
Bench of this court in Appeal (L) No. 9967 of 2025 in Yogesh
1
Prakash Kela and Ors. Vs. High Court On Its Own Motion .
He submits that in the facts of the said case, in breach of the
order of injunction, third-party rights were created. The
learned division bench of this court referred to the decision of
the Apex Court in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari Vs.
Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (Deceased) Rep. By Lrs. And
2
Ors and held that in view of the apology tendered by the
contemnors and the explanation furnished by the
respondents, there was no sufficient reason to impose a fine
1 2025 BHC OS 26102
2 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750
9/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
and convict the contemnors. He submits that even in the
present case, in view of the unconditional apology tendered
by the respondents with willingness to replace the solvent
surety, there would not be any sufficient grounds to hold the
respondents guilty of contempt and impose any fine or
punishment. He therefore submits that a similar view be
taken in the present case and that the contempt notice be
discharged by accepting the unconditional apology and
permitting the respondents to replace the solvent surety.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the facts
of the case as pleaded in the plaint. He submits that the
respondents have used the amounts paid by the petitioners
to purchase two flats in 2003. There is no dispute that the
amount of Rs. 46,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs from
2003 till 2008. He submits that since the defendants had
created third-party rights in respect of the flats agreed to be
th
sold to the plaintiffs, they executed the agreement on 11
February 2009 and considering the valuation of the two flats,
agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,30,00,000/-. He submits
that the defendants breached the said agreement and
therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.
10/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
valuation of the two flats, along with the car parking space,
had been agreed to be sold to the petitioners. The valuation
of the flats in 2014 increased to approximately Rs.
4,85,00,000/-. He submits that as on date the valuation of the
flats would be above Rs. 9 crores. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that if the solvent surety was not
furnished as a condition to defend, the plaintiffs would have
been entitled to a decree forthwith. However, in the present
case, respondents have furnished the solvent surety,
proceeded with the trial, and thereafter created third-party
rights to defeat the plaintiffs’ right to a decree forthwith. He
therefore submits that the apology tendered by the
respondents is not bona fide and that the respondents are
seeking to take undue advantage of the conditional leave
granted to the defendants in the summary suit.
15. I have carefully perused the papers of the contempt
petition. There is no dispute that the conditional leave
granted was subject to furnishing the solvent surety for the
suit claim, i.e. the principal amount of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- with
interest of 18%. In view of the solvent surety, the claim
11/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
amount is liable to be realised from the property furnished as
security by enforcing the surety as provided under Section
145 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”). Thus, the
solvent surety furnished by a party has an implicit
undertaking by the party that the property shall remain
unencumbered. It is clear that if there is a breach of solvent
surety, it would amount to defeating the very purpose of
imposing a condition for the grant of leave to defend the
summary suit. If there was a breach in furnishing the solvent
surety, the plaintiffs would have been entitled to a decree
forthwith, in view of sub-rule (6)(b) of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII
of the CPC.
16. Thus, a solvent surety would mean that it has to remain
unencumbered so that it can be realised to satisfy the
decree. Therefore, the undertaking to the court that the land
shall remain unencumbered is implicit in the solvent surety
provided by the party as the condition to defend the suit.
17. In the present case, the respondents, with full
knowledge that the solvent surety was furnished as a
condition for leave to defend, executed the sale deed and
disposed of the property that was furnished in the court as a
12/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
solvent surety to satisfy the condition for leave to defend.
Despite the solvent surety furnished in the court as a
condition to defend the summary suit, the respondents
executed the sale deed without seeking any permission from
the court. It was only after this court issued notice before
admission in the contempt petition that respondent no. 1 filed
th
an application in the trial court on 9 May 2025 for
permission to replace the solvent surety.
18. The contemnors (respondents), with full knowledge that
the property is offered as a solvent surety in the court,
executed the sale deed, thereby committing a breach of the
surety furnished to the court. When the property is offered as
surety, there is an assurance to the court that it will remain
unencumbered till the decision of the suit or any further order
passed by the court. Therefore, the undertaking to the court
is implicit in furnishing a solvent surety that the property shall
remain unencumbered. Therefore, the breach of solvent
surety would amount to a civil contempt as defined in Section
2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Hence, I am
satisfied that the respondents have committed a willful
nd
breach of the order passed by the trial court on 2 May 2011,
13/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
th
read with the order dated 10 October 2011, passed in Writ
th
Petition No. 8166 of 2011, and the order dated 7 April 2014,
passed in Writ Petition No. 6435 of 2013. The respondents
are therefore guilty of contempt of court and liable to
punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
19. So far as the submissions regarding the acceptance of
an unconditional apology are concerned, it is necessary to
refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Balwantbhai
3
Somabhai Bhandari Vs Hiralal Somabhai Contractor . It is
held by the Apex Court that the breach of an undertaking
given to a court by a person in a pending proceeding on the
faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action
is misconduct amounting to contempt. The Apex Court has
confirmed the order passed by the High Court holding the
appellants guilty of civil contempt for breaching the
undertaking given to the court. The Apex Court held that the
solemn assurance given to the court would amount to
committing breach of the orders passed by the court and
therefore, would amount to civil contempt as defined under
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3 (2023) 17 SCC 545
14/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
20. The Apex Court has also dealt with the issue as to
whether the contemptuous transactions would be void. After
referring to the well-settled legal principles on the said issue,
the Apex Court held in paragraph 89 as under :-
“89. Thus, although Section 52 of the Act 1882 does not
render a transfer pendente lite void yet the court while
exercising contempt jurisdiction may be justified to pass
directions either for reversal of the transactions in question
by declaring the said transactions to be void or proceed to
pass appropriate directions to the authorities concerned to
ensure that the contumacious conduct on the part of the
contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of
the contemnor or anyone claiming under him.”
21. In the facts before the Apex Court, the High Court had
held that the transactions executed by the contemnors in
breach of the court’s orders would be liable to be declared
non est . It is thus held by the Apex Court that, considering
the facts of the case, it would not be necessary to implead
the purchasers in contempt proceedings. So far as the
concept of apology is concerned, in reference to Section 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Apex Court has
15/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
explained the concept of apology in paragraphs 100 to 103
as under :-
“100. Section 12 of the Act 1971 provides for the punishment
of contempt. Proviso to this section states that the accused
may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be
remitted on the apology being made to the satisfaction of the
court. Explanation to this says that the apology shall not be
rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or
conditional, if the accused makes it bona fide. Therefore,
what is requirement of the provision is that the apology which
is either qualified or conditional made by the alleged
contemner shall also be not discarded if the same in the
opinion of the court is made bona fide. It is the discretion of
the court whether to accept the same or not and that
discretion is required to be exercised judiciously and the
accused can be discharged. For preventing interference in
the course of justice and to upkeep the authority of law,
sparingly, of course, such power contemplated under the
constitution warrant its use.
101. We now proceed to consider the question as regards
the acceptance of apology. It is pertinent to note at this stage
16/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
that all throughout the proceedings before the High Court,
the stance of the appellants was that they committed a big
mistake by executing the sale deeds despite having given a
clear-cut undertaking to the court that they would not do so.
By and large, from the averments in the various affidavits
filed by the appellants over a period of time; referred to by
the High Court in its judgment, the stance had been that the
appellants should not have defied the order of the High Court
and are extremely sorry in that regard. In such
circumstances, the appellants pleaded before the High Court
that their apology may be accepted and they may be
discharged from the proceedings.
102. We may take judicial notice of the fact with all humility
at our command that over a period of time, the courts have
shown undue leniency and magnanimity towards the
contemnors. This lenient attitude shown by the courts over a
period of time has actually emboldened unscrupulous
litigants to disobey or commit breach of the order passed by
any court or any undertaking given to the court with impunity.
103. The litigants, proceeded for contempt of court have
realised that they have a very potent weapon in their hands
17/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
in the form of apology. Take for instance, the present case
itself. What do the appellants want us to do? The appellants
want this Court to accept their apology and set aside the
order of punishment and sentence passed by the High Court.
There ought not to be a tendency by courts to show
compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an
order is with impunity and with total consciousness.”
22. The Apex Court has therefore concluded that the
litigants who proceed by committing contempt of the orders
of the court have realised that they have every potent
weapon in their hands in the form of an apology. Hence, the
apology tendered by the contemnor committing contempt
with full knowledge is not accepted as bona fide . The Apex
Court has therefore held that an apology is not merely a word
and a party should not be allowed to shirk out of the
responsibility by simply tendering an apology. The Apex
Court has therefore, concluded with reference to an apology
tendered for committing contempt of court in paragraphs 112
and 113 as under :-
“ 112. Thus, apology is not just a word. The court should not
accept the apology when it appears that saying sorry is
18/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
nothing but a legal trick to wriggle out of responsibility. A true
apology must be a deep ethical act of introspection, self-
introspection, atonement and self-reform. In its absence, an
apology can be termed as farce.
113. It is equally well-settled that apology tendered is not to
be accepted as a matter of course and the court is not bound
to accept the same. Although, the apology may be
unconditional, unqualified and bona fide, yet, if the conduct is
serious which has caused damage to the dignity of the
institution the same need not to be accepted.”
23. The Apex Court, thus, in the facts of the case before it,
held that the conduct of the contemnors was nothing but a
gamble, and it was a lame excuse on their part to say that
they were left with no choice but to execute the sale deed.
The Apex Court held that the contemnors had taken a
calculated risk by transferring the property and by pocketing
the sale consideration. Executing the sale deed in breach of
the undertaking given to the court was therefore held to be a
clear contempt, as the contemnors, though they had an
opportunity to seek clarification or permission, proceeded to
execute the sale deed and, after gaining the benefits,
19/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
tendered an apology.
24. The Apex Court thus summarised the issue of holding
the parties guilty of contempt and the concept of accepting
an apology in the final conclusion in paragraph 117 which
reads as under :-
“117. We may summarise our final conclusion as under:
117.1 We hold that an assurance in the form of an
undertaking given by a counsel/advocate on behalf of his
client to the court; the wilful breach or disobedience of the
same would amount to "civil contempt" as defined under
Section 2(b) of the Act 1971.
117.2 There exists a distinction between an undertaking
given to a party to the lis and the undertaking given to a
court. The undertaking given to a court attracts the
provisions of the 1971 Act whereas an undertaking given to a
party to the lis by way of an agreement of settlement or
otherwise would not attract the provisions of the 1971 Act. In
the facts of the present case, we hold that the undertaking
was given to the High Court and the breach or disobedience
would definitely attract the provisions of the Act 1971.
20/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
117.3 Although the transfer of the suit property pendente lite
may not be termed as void ab initio yet when the court is
looking into such transfers in contempt proceedings the court
can definitely declare such transactions to be void in order to
maintain the majesty of law. Apart from punishing the
contemnor, for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law
may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the
court so that any advantage secured as a result of such
contumacious conduct is completely nullified. This may
include issue of directions either for reversal of the
transactions by declaring such transactions to be void or
passing appropriate directions to the authorities concerned
to ensure that the contumacious conduct on the part of the
contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of
the contemnor or any one claiming under him.
117.4 The beneficiaries of any contumacious transaction
have no right or locus to be heard in the contempt
proceedings on the ground that they are bona fide
purchasers of the property for value without notice and
therefore, are necessary parties. Contempt is between the
court and the contemnor and no third party can involve itself
21/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
into the same.
117.5 The apology tendered should not be accepted as a
matter of course and the court is not bound to accept the
same. The apology may be unconditional, unqualified and
bona fide, still if the conduct is serious, which has caused
damage to the dignity of the institution, the same should not
be accepted. There ought not to be a tendency by courts, to
show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or
an order is with impunity and with total consciousness.”
25. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned,
there is no dispute that with full knowledge that the property
is furnished in the court as a solvent surety as a condition to
defend the suit, the respondents proceeded to execute the
sale deed. The offer made by the respondents to replace the
solvent surety is only after this court issued notice by
rd
recording a prima facie opinion in an order dated 3
September 2025 and permitting the plaintiffs to file a
necessary application before the trial court on the ground of
breach of the condition for leave to defend. The explanation
offered by the respondents is casually stating that, since they
were in need of money, they found it fit to execute the sale
22/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
deed to satisfy their financial requirements. Since this court
has recorded observations of the breach committed by the
respondents, they offered to replace the solvent surety.
26. In the affidavit-in-reply, the respondents have gone so
far as to contend that, since the time granted to dispose of
the suit had expired, all interim orders stood vacated. Such
conduct of the respondents in offering to replace the solvent
surety shows the arrogance on their part that, since the court
has found the execution of the sale deed to be a breach of
the solvent surety, the court should accept a fresh surety.
27. In the entire affidavit, I see no regret expressed by the
respondents for committing a willful breach of the solvent
surety submitted to the court. Hence, considering the legal
principles settled by the Apex Court in Balwantbhai
Somabhai Bhandari, the unconditional apology, with an offer
to replace the solvent surety, cannot be accepted as bona
fide.
28. As held by the Apex Court, such conduct of the parties
in committing breaches of assurances and undertakings
given to the court has to be deprecated. Hence, considering
the facts of the case, as discussed in the above paragraphs,
23/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
in light of the legal principles settled by the Apex Court, I see
no reason to accept the respondents' apology as bona fide .
29. The observations of the learned Division Bench of this
court in Yogesh Prakash Kela, relied upon by the learned
senior counsel for the respondents, are in reference to the
facts of the said case. In view of the legal principles settled
by the Apex court, the observations made by the learned
Division Bench in the facts of the case would not assist the
respondents in contending that the apology tendered by
them is bona fide .
30. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, the
respondents are held guilty of contempt of court and are
liable to be punished under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. So far as imposing
punishment for contempt is concerned, the hearing is
adjourned to the second session to enable the respondents
to make their submissions on the sentence.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
SECOND SESSION
31. This contempt petition was kept in the second session
24/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
to enable the learned counsel for the respondents to make
submissions on the sentence to be imposed on the
respondents under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. Learned senior counsel for the respondents has
th
tendered an undertaking dated 4 May 2026. In the
undertaking, respondent no. 1 has assured to settle the suit
claim by way of a full and final settlement by making payment
to the petitioners (plaintiffs). He has agreed and undertaken
to make payment of Rs. 2,30,00,000/-, with interest from the
th
date of filing of the suit till 11 May 2026, calculated at Rs.
2,30,00,000/-. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 has submitted
an undertaking that he shall pay the total amount of Rs.
4,60,00,000/- to the petitioners (plaintiffs) as full and final
settlement of the suit claim. Respondent no. 1 has further
undertaken that he shall pay the principal amount of Rs.
2,30,00,000/-. to the petitioners by depositing the said
th
amount on or before 8 May 2026 in the trial court. So far as
the amount of interest is concerned, he has undertaken that
he shall make payment of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- towards interest
in four equal monthly instalments of Rs. 57,50,000/- by
depositing the same with the trial court.
25/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
32. Learned senior counsel for the respondents therefore
submits that, since respondent no. 1 has agreed to settle the
suit by making a payment towards a full and final settlement,
the respondents may not be sentenced to imprisonment. He
submits that respondent no. 2 is a senior citizen and is
unwell and bedridden. Hence, considering the same and the
undertaking given by respondent no.1, leniency may be
shown to the respondents by discharging them by accepting
their unconditional apology and the undertaking tendered by
respondent no.1.
33. Learned senior counsel for the respondents further
submits that the consent terms are also signed by the
parties, stating that the entire suit claim shall be settled for a
full and final amount as stated in the undertaking. Petitioner
No. 1(Plaintiff No.1) is present in the court. The parties have
th
prepared the consent terms dated 4 May 2026, which are
signed by the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 and their
respective advocates. The signed consent terms are
tendered and are taken on record.
34. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions of
petitioner no. 1 submits that petitioner no.2 who is the wife of
26/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
petitioner no.1 has also agreed to dispose of the suit in terms
of the consent terms signed by petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.1. He submits that since respondent no.1 has
agreed to make payment towards full and final settlement of
the suit claim, the petitioners are agreeable for disposing of
the suit in terms of the arrangement between the parties as
th
recorded in the consent terms dated 4 May 2026, tendered
today before this court.
35. Since respondent no.1 has shown willingness to settle
the entire suit claim by way of full and final settlement and
has accordingly tendered an undertaking to the court, this
court is satisfied that the respondents can be discharged on
payment of a fine and by accepting the undertaking tendered
to this court today and also by accepting an apology. In view
of the undertaking, the respondents are held liable only to
pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The fine amount shall be deposited
by the respondents before the trial court within four weeks
from today.
th
36. The undertaking dated 4 May 2026, signed and
executed by respondent no.1, is taken on record and marked
‘X’ with today’s date for identification. The undertakings are
27/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
accepted as an undertaking to the court. The consent terms
th
dated 4 May 2026, signed by petitioner no.1, respondent
no.1, and their respective advocates, are taken on record
and marked as ‘X1’ with today’s date for identification.
37. The following directions are issued in view of the
undertaking and the consent terms tendered today:
I. The respondents are held liable to pay a fine of Rs.
2,000/-. The fine amount shall be deposited by the
respondents before the trial court within four weeks
from today.
II. The undertakings recorded in affidavit-cum-undertaking
th
dated 4 May 2026, taken on record and marked ‘X’
th
with today’s date, and the consent terms dated 4 May
2026, taken on record and marked as ‘X1’ with today’s
date, are accepted as undertakings to the court.
Accordingly, the respondents' apology is accepted, and
they are discharged on payment of the fine amount,
subject to compliance with the undertakings as
recorded above.
III. The petitioners(plaintiffs) shall be permitted to withdraw
the amount that would be deposited by respondent
28/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::
5-CP-488-2025.docx
no.1 as per the undertaking and the consent terms.
The trial court shall permit the petitioners (plaintiffs) to
withdraw the amount without any condition.
IV. On compliance with the undertakings and the consent
terms, the trial court shall dispose of the suit in
accordance with the consent terms.
V. It is clarified that, as agreed in the consent terms, the
petitioners shall take steps to dispose of the criminal
proceedings.
38. The contempt petition is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
39. All pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
29/29
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2026 21:10:14 :::