Breach of Undertaking to Pay Decretal Amount Constitutes Contempt Irrespective of Concurrent Execution Proceedings and Alleged Fraud.

The Petitioner filed a suit for recovery under Order XXXVII CPC, which was decreed on 24.11.2015 for ₹9 Lakhs with 12% interest.

The Respondent challenged this in RFA 169/2016 but subsequently withdrew the appeal on 28.08.2018, giving a voluntary undertaking to satisfy the decretal amount by 28.02.2019.

Despite the dismissal of an extension application on 08.09.2019, the Respondent failed to pay.

The Respondent contended that the decree was obtained via fraud and that he had already served 60 days of civil imprisonment ordered by the Executing Court on 14.05.2025, thus arguing that further contempt proceedings would constitute double jeopardy.

1. Whether the breach of a voluntary undertaking given to the Court to satisfy a money decree constitutes "willful disobedience" under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Whether a finding of financial inability by an Executing Court or the prior undergoing of civil imprisonment in execution proceedings bars the High Court from punishing the contemnor under contempt jurisdiction.

3. Whether the validity of the underlying decree (allegations of fraud) can be adjudicated within contempt proceedings.

The Court primarily applied Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 regarding civil contempt.

The Court relied on the principle that contempt jurisdiction is a matter between the Court and the contemnor, distinct from inter-partes execution proceedings.

The Court followed the precedent in Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 360, which establishes that a breach of an undertaking incorporated into a court order amounts to contempt regardless of the availability of execution remedies.

Furthermore, it affirmed the principle that a contempt court cannot go behind the decree or re-examine the merits/validity of the original order.

The Court reasoned that the Respondent’s failure to honor the undertaking was "willful" because the plea of fraud had already been available and abandoned when the appeal was withdrawn in 2018.

The Court dismissed the Respondent’s reliance on the Executing Court’s finding of "financial inability," noting that the Respondent—a medical graduate—failed to provide any evidence of bona fide efforts to arrange funds or prove his lack of employment through pleadings until the very late stages of the case.

Crucially, the Court held that prior civil imprisonment under the CPC does not immunize a party from punishment for contempt, as the two proceedings serve different legal purposes (enforcement of a private right vs. upholding the majesty of the court).

The Court characterized the Respondent’s shifting stands between the two forums as "playing ducks and drakes" with the judiciary.

Consequently, the Court sentenced the Respondent to simple imprisonment for two (02) months and imposed a fine of ₹2,000, with an additional seven (07) days of imprisonment in default of payment. The petition was disposed of accordingly.