Binding settlement agreement and undertaking recorded in court supersede contempt proceedings with liberty to revive upon non-compliance.

The petitioner, Garima Dawer, filed a contempt petition against the respondent, Pankaj Choudhary, alleging non-compliance with prior judicial directions or obligations

During the pendency of the proceedings, an application (CM APPL. 43000/2026) was moved to place on record a Settlement Agreement dated June 5, 2026, executed between the parties at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts

The respondent appeared in person before the High Court to affirm his commitment to the mediated settlement

1. Whether the contempt proceedings can be disposed of based on the voluntary Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties during mediation.

2. Whether the respondent is legally bound by his statement and undertaking given to the Court to abide by the terms of the settlement.

The Court applied the principles of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, regarding the willful disobedience of court orders, balanced against the judicial policy of encouraging alternative dispute resolution under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It further relied on the legal doctrine of judicial undertakings, whereby a party’s statement made before the Court to abide by a settlement is treated as a binding injunction, the breach of which warrants the revival of original proceedings or fresh contempt action

The Court examined the Settlement Agreement dated June 5, 2026, and integrated its terms into the judicial record

Since the respondent appeared in person and gave a formal undertaking to the Court to abide by the mediation terms, the Court held that the grievance underlying the contempt petition was effectively addressed through this consensus

The Court reasoned that the undertaking given by the respondent created a legal obligation to perform the settlement terms. To ensure the petitioner's rights were protected, the Court provided for a "liberty to revive" clause, ensuring that any future non-compliance would allow the petitioner to return to the Court immediately rather than filing a fresh suit

The Court held the respondent bound by his undertaking to follow the Settlement Agreement dated June 5, 2026

It granted liberty to the petitioner to revive the present petition or seek other legal remedies in the event of any non-compliance or breach of the settlement terms by the respondent