Supreme Court Upholds Liability for Disobedience of Injunction Orders Even After Their Setting Aside

 

Supreme Court Upholds Liability for Disobedience of Injunction Orders Even After Their Setting Aside
By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the subsequent setting aside of an injunction order does not absolve a party from liability for disobedience committed during the pendency of such an order. The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol delivered this judgment in the context of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which provides the mechanism for taking action against parties who violate injunction orders or other orders issued under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a dispute involving a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 30th April 2004, where the respondents (original plaintiffs) sought the revocation of the agreement due to alleged non-compliance by the appellants (original defendants). During the pendency of the suit, the appellants, through their counsel, gave an undertaking not to alienate the subject property. However, it was alleged that the appellants violated this undertaking by selling parts of the property.

The Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove willful disobedience by the appellants. However, the High Court of Karnataka reversed this decision, holding the appellants guilty of contempt of court and imposing penalties, including attachment of property and imprisonment.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants could be held liable for disobedience of the injunction order even after the order was subsequently set aside. The Court also examined the fiduciary relationship between an advocate and their client, particularly in the context of undertakings given to the court.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Court referred to Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, which prescribes punishment for disobedience of injunction orders. The provision allows the court to punish the disobedient party by attachment of property or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. The Court emphasized that disobedience of an injunction order while it was in force remains actionable, even if the order is later set aside.

The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, where it was held that the subsequent setting aside of an injunction order does not erase the liability for disobedience committed during its pendency. The Court observed that the purpose of Rule 2A is to ensure compliance with court orders and maintain the dignity of the judicial process.

 

Fiduciary Relationship Between Advocate and Client

The appellants argued that the undertaking given by their counsel was without their express authorization. The Court, however, rejected this contention, emphasizing the fiduciary relationship between an advocate and their client. The Court noted that advocates are agents of their clients and must act with utmost good faith and integrity. Any undertaking given to the court must be based on express instructions from the client.

The Court cited several precedents, including Kokkanda B. Poondacha v. K.D. Ganapathi and Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, to reiterate that advocates cannot make concessions or give undertakings without proper authorization from their clients.

Modification of Sentence

While upholding the High Court’s decision to hold the appellants guilty of contempt, the Supreme Court modified the sentence in light of the appellants’ advanced age and health conditions. The Court deleted the three-month imprisonment but upheld the attachment of property and increased the compensation payable by the appellants from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 13 lakhs, with simple interest at 6% from the date of the Trial Court’s judgment.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to court orders and the fiduciary duties of advocates towards their clients. The Supreme Court has made it clear that disobedience of an injunction order during its pendency cannot be excused, even if the order is later set aside. The ruling reinforces the principle that compliance with judicial orders is essential to maintain the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial process.

Case Title: Smt. Lavanya C & Anr. v. Vittal Gurudas Pai (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 325