Project

Submitted by
Shohom Roy

Batch 2020-25, Group-A, BBA.LL.B., PRN-20010224241

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

In
March, 2024

Under the guidance of

Mr. Yashasvi Virendra
(Course-In-Charge)

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Civil Law Practice
 Contempt of Court visa-vis violation of Injunction
Introduction
Contempt of Court and violation of injunction are pivotal to maintaining judicial integrity and
upholding the rule of law. Contempt encompasses actions undermining court authority, while
violation of injunction occurs when parties flout court orders. Judicial orders, like
injunctions, safeguard rights, resolve disputes, and uphold societal order. These orders,
grounded in legal principles and evidence, are binding on involved parties, ensuring fairness
and predictability in legal proceedings. Upholding judicial orders is vital for protecting rights,
resolving disputes, and maintaining order, promoting respect for the rule of law. Judicial
authority and integrity are preserved through enforcement of these orders, ensuring
compliance and respect from all parties. In summary, Contempt of Court and violation of
injunction are integral to the legal system, ensuring justice, fairness, and adherence to the rule
of law within society.
Legal Framework of Contempt of Court
Contempt of Court has ancient roots, dating back to legal systems where disobedience of
judicial orders incurred severe penalties to uphold authority. It evolved to ensure judicial
processes' efficacy and court dignity, seen in medieval European royal courts and common
law systems.
Classified into civil and criminal categories, civil contempt involves failure to comply with
court orders, compelling compliance, while criminal contempt punishes behaviour disrupting
court proceedings. In jurisdictions like India, the Contempt of Courts Act establishes legal
frameworks, defining contempt, procedures, and penalties, ensuring due process.
Contempt of Court is vital for upholding judicial authority and dignity, reinforcing respect for
the rule of law by sanctioning conduct undermining court integrity. These powers enable
courts to maintain decorum, enforce orders, and protect litigants' rights, serving as a deterrent
against misconduct and enhancing public confidence in impartial justice administration.
Injunctions and Their Implications
Injunctions serve as crucial legal remedies aimed at preventing harm, maintaining the status
quo, or enforcing specific rights. They come in various forms, including temporary,
permanent, mandatory, and prohibitory injunctions, each tailored to address different
circumstances. Temporary injunctions are provisional measures issued to preserve the rights
of parties until a final decision is reached. Permanent injunctions, on the other hand, are
issued as final remedies after a full hearing on the merits of the case. Mandatory injunctions
compel parties to perform specific actions, while prohibitory injunctions prohibit certain
conduct. Obtaining an injunction involves a formal legal process typically initiated by filing a
petition or motion with the court. The petitioner must demonstrate a likelihood of success on
the merits, irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and a balancing of the equities in
their favor. Courts evaluate the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties before
deciding whether to grant the injunction.
Enforcement of injunctions is essential to ensure compliance with court orders. Courts may
employ various enforcement mechanisms, including fines, contempt proceedings, or even
imprisonment for non-compliance. Injunctions may also be enforced through civil remedies,
such as monetary damages for losses incurred due to violation of the injunction.

Intersection of Contempt of Court and Violation of Injunction

The purpose of civil contempt proceedings extends beyond merely punishing the contemner;
it also aims to enforce obedience to court orders. In the case of Vidya Sagar v. Third
Additional District Judge, Dehradun,1 it was established that civil contempt serves a dual
purpose: first, it vindicates the public interest by penalizing contemptuous behaviour, and
second, it acts as coercion to compel the contemner to comply with the court's requirements.
To establish Civil Contempt, certain criteria must be met:
1. Disobedience of court orders or breach of undertakings given to the court: For
civil contempt to occur, the disobedience must relate to an order issued by a court
with the jurisdiction to do so. Orders issued without jurisdiction are not binding on the
party, and disobedience to such orders does not constitute contempt of court.
Additionally, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging lack of jurisdiction to
demonstrate that the court that issued the order lacked the authority to do so, or that
the proceeding in which the undertaking was given lacked jurisdiction.
In Courts on its Own Motion v. N.S. Kumar, 2 it was established that while court
orders are typically served formally, individuals cannot evade contempt liability if
they had actual knowledge of the order. Failure to comply with a court order cannot
be excused by claiming to await instructions or authorization from superiors.
Breaching a court undertaking is also considered contempt if wilful, and the
undertaking must be given directly to the court. The rationale for treating breach of
undertakings as contempt is that it constitutes false representations to the court,
benefiting the contemner. Failure to honor the undertaking obstructs justice and
tarnishes the judiciary's reputation.
In the case of Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin, 3 the Supreme Court clarified that
breaching an undertaking recorded or included in a compromise decree does not
constitute contempt of court. The court emphasized the distinction between a
compromise reached between parties or a consent order issued by the court at the
parties' request, and a specific and unequivocal undertaking given by any party
involved. In the former scenario, if there is a breach of the compromise or the order,
contempt of court does not arise. Instead, the aggrieved party has the right to enforce
the order or the compromise by executing the order or seeking an injunction from the
court.
Wilful disobedience or breach: For civil contempt, the disobedience of a court order or
breach of an undertaking given to the court must be intentional and deliberate. The Supreme
Court of India has emphasized that mere disobedience of a court order is insufficient to
constitute civil contempt; it must be wilful. The court must be convinced beyond doubt that

1
1991 Cr LJ 2286.
2
1995 Cr LJ 1261.
3
1980 3 SCC 47.
the individual deliberately and intentionally violated the court's order. Determining whether
the disobedience was wilful is a matter for the court to decide based on the facts and
circumstances of the case.
In the case of Ram Narang v. Ramesh Narang,4 the court delineated two categories
of civil contempt: wilful disobedience to a court process and wilful breach of an
undertaking given to the court. The distinction between these categories is significant,
as the legislative intention was to create separate classes of contumacious behaviour.
For the second category, the undertaking must have been given directly to the court,
not to the other party involved. The court clarified that wilful violation of the terms of
a consent decree constitutes contempt of court. However, the contempt jurisdiction
cannot be invoked for the enforcement of a court decree or direction for payment of
money. Instead, alternative legal mechanisms such as the Contempt of Court Act or
Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC should be utilized for such enforcement purposes.
Precedents Involving Injunction Violations Leading to Contempt Proceedings:
1. In the case of P.D. vs U.W. (2019)5:
 Facts: The petitioner initiated legal action against the respondent for
disregarding an ex-parte injunction from the Family Court by pursuing a case
in New Jersey.
 Court’s Analysis: The Delhi High Court deliberated on the petition's eligibility
for contempt, considering the availability of recourse under Order XXXIX
Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
 Conclusion: The court addressed the petition's maintainability and offered an
intricate examination of the legal framework, establishing a precedent for
similar scenarios.
2. In B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy and Others vs K. Naga Raju Yadav and Another
(2013)6:
 Facts: The petitioner sought police intervention, alleging violations of an ad-
interim injunction in a property dispute.
 Court’s Reasoning: The Andhra High Court discussed the execution of court
orders and emphasized the judiciary's dignity.
 Conclusion: The court underscored the significance of enforcing injunctions
and the role of contempt proceedings in ensuring adherence.
Analysis of Legal Reasoning in Such Cases:
The legal rationale behind cases involving injunction violations leading to contempt often
revolves around:
 Evaluation of enforceability of injunctions and measures for compliance.
 Scrutiny of court jurisdiction and the extent of its orders.
4
AIR 2006 SCC 1883.
5
AIR 2020 NOC 121 DEL.
6
C.R.P No. 6251 of 2012.
  Assessment of procedural adherence in obtaining and enforcing injunctions.
 Balancing enforcement of court orders with the rights of involved parties.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the intersection of Contempt of Court and violation of injunction is vital for
maintaining judicial integrity and upholding the rule of law. Contempt proceedings enforce
court orders, preserving the authority of the judiciary, while injunction violations challenge
judicial processes and compromise court decisions' integrity. Legal frameworks like the
Contempt of Courts Act define and address contemptuous behavior, ensuring due process.
Analyzing legal reasoning in cases of injunction violations leading to contempt underscores
the importance of enforceability, jurisdictional considerations, procedural adherence, and
balancing enforcement with individual rights. Courts play a crucial role in ensuring fairness
and justice.
Balancing enforcement with the rights of involved parties is crucial. Courts must uphold
authority while respecting individual liberties. Contempt of Court and violation of injunction
are integral to ensuring justice and adherence to the rule of law. Effective enforcement
upholds court integrity, fosters respect for legal processes, and safeguards the rights of all
parties involved.
 References
Books:
1. Malik, A. (2021). Law of Contempt of Court: With Special Reference to Contempt
Proceedings in India. Eastern Book Company.
2. Sarkar, S. C. (1987). Law of Contempt: With Reference to Indian Case Law.
Butterworth & Co.
3. Desai, S. A. (2000). Law of Contempt in India. NM Tripathi Private Limited.
Journal Articles:
1. Datar, A. (2017). Contempt of Court: An Indian Perspective. International Journal of
Law, 3(2), 94-102.
2. Chandra, A. (2004). Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Relating to Contempt of
Court in India. NALSAR Student Law Review, 1, 75-90.
3. Puri, V. K. (1970). Law of Contempt: Constitutional Aspects. Journal of the Indian
Law Institute, 12(3), 324-344.
Law Review Articles:
1. Deshpande, V. S. (2012). Contempt of Court with Reference to Disobedience of Court
Orders. AIR Journal, 99, 113-116.
2. Hegde, N. S. (2007). Contempt Jurisdiction: Need for a Fresh Look. Karnataka Law
Journal, 43(1), 24-36.
3. Krishnan, J. K. (2003). The Insider-Outsider Paradox in Contempt of Court. NUJS
Law Review, 1(1), 139-154.