Disobedience of Counsel’s Undertaking and its Continuing Effect on Contempt Liability

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of LAVANYA C. v. VITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SMT. V. AMRITHKALA PAI (2025 INSC 325), has emphasized the binding nature of an undertaking given on behalf of parties by their counsel, and the continuing liability for contempt even if the original suit is subsequently dismissed. The foregoing Judgment addressed complex issues surrounding legal undertakings, fiduciary relationships between advocates and clients, and the scope of contempt jurisdiction.

In this matter, the appellants, who were original defendants, appealed against a High Court ruling that found them guilty of contempt for having violated an undertaking not to alienate certain suit property. Although the Trial Court had earlier concluded there was no willful disobedience, the High Court reversed that finding, ultimately resulting in an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The key parties are:

• Appellants (Original Defendants): Smt. Lavanya C and another
• Respondents (Original Plaintiffs): Heirs of late Vittal Gurudas Pai, represented by Smt. V. Amrithkala Pai

The Supreme Court’s pronouncement clarifies that any undertaking given by counsel, once recorded or incorporated into a court order, remains operative unless promptly challenged or withdrawn. Crucially, the subsequent dismissal of the suit or alleged deficiencies in the property description do not absolve a party from liability if the undertaking is later violated.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The dispute originated from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) entered into by the parties for the construction of residential apartments, which was not completed within the stipulated period. Litigation ensued when the plaintiffs sought to have the JDA revoked due to alleged breaches by the defendants.

During the pendency of that litigation, the defendants, via their advocate, twice undertook before the Trial Court not to alienate the suit property to any third party. Subsequently, it was alleged that the defendants violated this undertaking by executing sale deeds, prompting an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code for disobedience of an injunction.

The Trial Court initially dismissed the contempt application, finding no clear evidence of disobedience. The High Court, however, set aside that order, deeming the defendants in willful breach of their undertaking and holding them liable for contempt. The High Court ordered their detention in civil prison, attachment of the property, and payment of compensation.

On final appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings as to contempt but showed leniency by removing the custodial sentence of the second appellant due to advanced age. The Court also increased the compensation amount payable to the respondents and maintained the attachment of the property.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998) 7 SCC 59: The Supreme Court reiterated that disobedience of an injunction order does not get erased even if the injunction is later set aside. In the present case, the High Court referred to this principle to assert that the subsequent dismissal of the suit does not absolve parties of earlier breaches.
• Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. 1990 (Suppl) SCC 727: This precedent explains that appellate courts will not readily interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court unless it is capricious or arbitrary. However, it also underscores the balance needed in protecting both plaintiff and defendant through interlocutory injunctions.
• Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307: It clarifies that an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is directed at punishing disobedience committed during the pendency of a suit, not after final disposal. The Supreme Court highlighted that the willful violations in an ongoing case can be sanctioned via contempt proceedings.
• RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI v. HARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI (2024 SCC OnLine 35 38) and Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719: These were cited regarding the grant of temporary injunction and its objectives — to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm.
• Kokkanda B. Poondacha v. K.D. Ganapathi (2011) 12 SCC 600 and Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373: Both elaborate that an advocate’s relationship with a client is fiduciary; hence any undertaking or admission by a lawyer for the client carries presumption of authority, unless timely disavowed.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning focused on the binding force of an advocate’s undertaking and the concept of contempt jurisdiction. The Court underscored:

1. Fiduciary Relationship: Advocates act in a fiduciary capacity regarding their clients, with implied authority to pursue the clients’ best interests in litigation. If the undertaking was unauthorized, the client is expected to promptly contest it before any substantive breach occurs.
2. Contempt for Willful Disobedience: Once an undertaking is recorded, any subsequent alienation of property violates that order and triggers liability under Order XXXIX Rule 2A. The Court made it clear that interim orders remain binding until specifically vacated, irrespective of the suit’s eventual outcome.
3. Continuing Effect of Injunctions: The Court relied on Samee Khan to highlight that once disobedience is committed, it is not undone or condoned merely by later developments in the main suit. In other words, contempt actions survive even if the principal claim is dismissed or unresolved.
4. Appropriate Sanctions: The Supreme Court balanced the seriousness of disobedience with mitigating factors such as the advanced age of one of the appellants. While acknowledging the seriousness of violating court orders, it granted partial relief by exempting the contemnor from civil prison but increasing monetary compensation.

3.3 Impact

This Judgment clarifies that parties cannot circumvent court-ordered obligations by simply alleging that their own counsel overstepped authority or by relying on the final outcome of the underlying litigation. It enforces a high standard of compliance once an undertaking is given to the Court. Future litigants will need to:

• Exercise caution when submitting any undertaking or concession through counsel, ensuring clear instructions are given.
• Adhere meticulously to interim orders/undertakings until they are formally varied or vacated.
• Recognize that non-compliance with a recorded undertaking can lead to serious punitive measures, including attachment of property, monetary compensation, and even potential imprisonment.

Therefore, the decision will undoubtedly shape litigation strategy, compelling parties to carefully monitor counsel’s representations and the ongoing status of any interim directives.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several procedural and doctrinal points that may be confusing for non-lawyers appear in this Judgment:

• Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC): This is the procedural rule that deals with the consequences of disobedience of injunctions. If a person willfully disobeys an injunction order, the court can order their detention in civil prison or direct the attachment and possible sale of property.
• Undertaking by Counsel: When a lawyer, on behalf of the client, makes a commitment to the court, that commitment can become an enforceable order. A client cannot casually disclaim it; it should be promptly challenged if unauthorized.
• Contempt of Court: This legal mechanism exists to ensure respect for judicial orders and the administration of justice. A violation could result in fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions. Even partial compliance or the later dismissal of a suit does not rescind earlier disobedience.
• Fiduciary Duty: Lawyers owe an elevated duty of trust and good faith to their clients, akin to trustees or agents. Statements or undertakings in court are assumed to be made after due authorization, unless promptly controverted.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court has forthrightly affirmed that once an undertaking is recorded, it carries full legal force until formally vacated. The contempt jurisdiction remains a potent tool for ensuring compliance with interim orders and maintaining the authority of the judiciary. By partially modifying the penalty but upholding the finding of contempt, the Court demonstrates a measured approach that balances the need for stringent enforcement of court orders against humanitarian or equitable considerations, such as the contemnor’s advanced age.

Overall, this Judgment sends a clear message to litigants and attorneys alike: an undertaking given to the Court is neither a mere formality nor easily shrugged off. It significantly impacts party rights and obligations, and unexcused breach can expose offenders to the full force of contempt powers—ranging from property attachment to monetary compensation. This decision “Disobedience of Counsel’s Undertaking and its Continuing Effect on Contempt Liability” thus solidifies the principle that a claim’s dismissal does not negate earlier violations, and underscores the importance of faithfully honoring all court-directed undertakings.