Case Judgement Analysis: Noorali Babul Thanewala v. KMM Shetty, AIR 1990 SC 464

1) Citation of the Case:

• Title: Noorali Babul Thanewala vs. K.M.M. Shetty and Others
• Citation: 1990 AIR 464, 1989 SCR Suppl. (2) 561

2) Facts of the Case:

1. The petitioner was the landlord of certain premises in Thane, in which a restaurant known as Ramakrishna Hindu Hotel was operated.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the first respondent and others.
3. The suit was decreed, but the first respondent filed an appeal and later a writ petition, which were both dismissed.
4. Subsequently, the first respondent filed a civil appeal in the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed.
5. The Supreme Court allowed the first respondent to remain in possession until March 31, 1989, under the condition that he and all his employees provide an undertaking to deliver vacant possession after that date.
6. A list of employees and an undertaking were submitted by the first respondent.
7. Later, the second respondent filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the eviction decree could not be executed against him and obtained a temporary injunction against eviction.

3) Issues Involved:

1. Whether the first respondent wilfully violated the undertaking given to the Supreme Court to deliver vacant possession by March 31, 1989.
2. Whether the second respondent was justified in seeking an injunction against eviction based on his claims of being in possession.

4) Arguments:

• Petitioner:

1. Contends that the first respondent wilfully violated the undertaking he provided to the Supreme Court, falsely instigated the second respondent's lawsuit, and fraudulently claimed to have handed over possession.
2. Argues that the first respondent should be held in contempt for breaching the undertaking and failing to comply with the order to deliver vacant possession.

• Respondent:

a)First Respondent:

1. Claims that he was not in possession of the premises at the time of giving the undertaking.
2. Suggests that the landlord withheld material facts, and therefore, the undertaking's terms should not apply.
3. Argues that his breach of the undertaking was not wilful and seeks a lenient penalty.

b)Second Respondent:

1. Seeks the court's protection based on his claims of being in possession of the premises and having obtained a temporary injunction.
2. Argues that he is entitled to protect his interest until his rights are determined in a trial.

5) Decision of the Court:

The court ruled that the order granting an injunction against the petitioner from executing the eviction decree against the second respondent was not justified in this case. It found that the first respondent wilfully violated the undertaking and ordered him to deliver vacant possession immediately. The court imposed a fine of Rs. 500 on the first respondent and directed the District Magistrate to evict all persons in possession of the property and hand over vacant possession to the petitioner.

6) Ratio of the Case:

Breach of an injunction or an undertaking given to the court is considered misconduct amounting to contempt. When a court accepts an undertaking and passes orders based on it, the order is effectively an injunction. The breach of an undertaking given to the court is treated as a breach of an injunction. The court may impose penalties, including fines or imprisonment, to punish the contemnor.

7) Comment on the Decision:

The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to undertakings given to the court, as well as the consequences of breaching such undertakings. It also highlights the need for parties to be forthright in court proceedings and to avoid misleading the court with false information or allegations. In this case, the court acted to uphold the integrity of its orders and protect the petitioner's rights to the property.