In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court found four senior citizen women guilty of civil contempt for violating a status quo order issued in 2010. Despite this violation, the court refrained from imposing civil imprisonment due to their advanced age, opting instead to levy fines and annul the unauthorized property transaction.
The case centers on a property dispute where a status quo order had been in effect since 2010. In defiance of this order, the contemnors entered into an agreement to sell the disputed property, thereby creating third-party rights. The petitioners subsequently filed a contempt application, asserting that this action constituted a willful disobedience of the court's directive.
The contemnors contended that they were unaware of the status quo order at the time of executing the sale agreement. However, the court observed that mutation entries from 2015 and 2019 explicitly referenced the status quo order. These entries were included in the agreement to sell, undermining the contemnors' claim of ignorance. The court stated that it was implausible for the contemnors to have entered into the agreement without verifying these entries, suggesting that their professed ignorance was unconvincing and appeared to be an afterthought.
Regarding the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnors, the court noted that this apology was submitted only in February 2025, long after the contempt proceedings had commenced. Initially, the contemnors had contested the charges vigorously, both before the coordinate bench and the Supreme Court, without expressing any remorse. The court found this delayed apology insufficient to absolve them of contempt.
In determining the appropriate penalty, the court considered the advanced age of the contemnors. While acknowledging the gravity of their contemptuous actions, the court decided against civil imprisonment. Instead, it imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on each contemnor. Additionally, the court quashed the unauthorized agreement to sell and imposed costs totaling Rs 1,50,000. Of this amount, Rs 1,00,000 was to be deposited with the court registry, and Rs 50,000 was to be paid to the petitioners.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding its orders and the rule of law, while also demonstrating compassion by considering the personal circumstances of the contemnors. It serves as a cautionary tale that ignorance of court orders, especially when such orders are a matter of public record, is not a valid defense in contempt proceedings. The court's decision to annul the unauthorized transaction further reinforces the principle that actions taken in violation of judicial directives are null and void.
The case also highlights the importance of due diligence in property transactions. Parties must ensure that they are fully informed about any legal encumbrances or court orders affecting a property before proceeding with any agreements. Failure to do so can result not only in the invalidation of the transaction but also in legal penalties, as evidenced by this case.
In conclusion, the Gujarat High Court's ruling balances the enforcement of judicial orders with empathy for the contemnors' age, delivering justice while considering humanitarian factors. This approach reinforces the authority of the judiciary and the necessity for individuals to adhere strictly to court orders, irrespective of personal circumstances.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.