Synopsis

The petitioners (plaintiffs in a summary suit) filed a contempt petition alleging willful breach of a solvent surety furnished by the respondents as a condition for leave to defend. The respondents, with full knowledge that the property was offered as a solvent surety to the court, executed a registered sale deed of that property in favour of a third party without seeking permission. The court held that furnishing a solvent surety carries an implicit undertaking that the property will remain unencumbered; its disposal constitutes civil contempt. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari, the court rejected the respondents’ unconditional apology as not bona fide, noting that the apology was a mere formality to evade punishment. The respondents were held guilty of contempt. However, in the second session, the respondents tendered an undertaking to settle the suit claim (₹2.30 crores principal + ₹2.30 crores interest). The court accepted the undertaking and the signed consent terms, imposed a token fine of ₹2,000, accepted the apology, and discharged the respondents.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gauri Godse (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 4th May 2026

Citation: Contempt Petition No. 488 of 2025 (unreported)

Core Law: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 2(b), 12; Civil contempt – Breach of solvent surety / undertaking to court.

1.  Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay civil appellate jurisdiction

Contempt petition no. 488 of 2025 in writ petition no. 6435 of 2013

Dr. hari tulshiram gholap & anr (petitioners) vs. Jitendra rajaram savant & anr (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mrs. justice gauri godse

Date: 4th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Contempt of courts act, 1971 – section 2(b) (definition of civil contempt), section 12 (punishment for contempt, apology as defence)

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.