He gave an undertaking to court through his lawyer. Then he sold the land anyway.
A family gave an undertaking through their senior advocate not to sell disputed land, then executed 13 sale deeds anyway — and the Supreme Court voided every one of them.
Voided.
Thirteen sale deeds.
Declared non-est.
A family gave an undertaking through their senior advocate not to sell disputed land, then executed 13 sale deeds anyway — and the Supreme Court voided every one of them.
When a Lawyer's Promise Becomes a Trap: The Undertaking That Cost a Family Their Land
Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari and his family owned land in Survey Nos. 63 and 65 in Majura, Gujarat. A dispute arose. In October 2015, their senior advocate stood before the Gujarat High Court and gave an undertaking on their instructions: the land would not be sold until the main petition was decided. The court recorded it. The Letters Patent Appeal was withdrawn on the strength of that promise. Then, between November 2015 and October 2018, the Bhandaris executed 13 sale deeds through a power of attorney holder, selling portions of the land to various purchasers. The contempt proceedings that followed did not end well for them. The Supreme Court of India, in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (Deceased) Rep. by LRs. & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 750, upheld the High Court’s conviction for civil contempt, imposed imprisonment and fines, and declared all 13 sale deeds void. The stakes were simple: a family lost its land, the purchasers lost their money, and the contemnors lost their liberty.
The Promise That Changed Everything
The story begins with a writ petition — SCA No. 16266/2013 — filed in the Gujarat High Court. The parties were locked in a dispute over the land. On 14 October 2015, the Single Judge recorded an undertaking given by the senior counsel for the Bhandaris: “the suit property will not be sold till the main petition is decided.” The undertaking was given on instructions. It was a promise to the court, not just to the other side.
On 21 October 2015, a Division Bench of the High Court heard a Letters Patent Appeal against an interim order. The appeal was withdrawn — precisely because the undertaking had been given. The court was assured that the property was safe. The litigation could proceed without the fear of alienation.
Then the Bhandaris sold the land. Not once. Thirteen times.
What the Contempt Proceedings Revealed
The opposing party moved a contempt application — MCA No. 121/2018. The High Court found the Bhandaris guilty of civil contempt. The court imposed imprisonment and fines. It also declared the 13 sale deeds void — “non est,” cancelled, and set aside. The contemnors offered unconditional apologies, but the court was not impressed. The apologies came only after the breach was discovered. Worse, the sales continued even after the contempt notice was served.
The contemnors appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The purchasers also filed a Special Leave Petition, arguing they were bona fide purchasers who had paid good money for the land.
The Arguments: Apology, Bona Fide Purchaser, and the Rule of Law
The contemnors argued that their apology should have been accepted. They relied on Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Another (2006) 11 SCC 114, Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia & Another (2000) 2 SCC 367, Bharat Steel Tubes Limited v. IFCI Limited (2010) 14 SCC 77, and Anil K. Surana & Another v. State Bank of Hyderabad (2007) 10 SCC 257. Their submission was that contempt proceedings require a substantial interference with the due course of justice — a mere technical breach should not attract punishment. They said their conduct did not obstruct justice.
The purchasers argued that they were innocent third parties. They had paid consideration. They had no knowledge of the undertaking. To void their sale deeds, they said, was unjust.
The Supreme Court was not persuaded.
The Doctrine the Supreme Court Applied
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, writing for the Bench with Justice Manoj Misra, laid down five clear principles that every advocate and litigant must understand.
First: A lawyer's undertaking to the court is binding on the client. When a senior advocate gives an assurance on instructions, and the court records it, a wilful breach amounts to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The client cannot later say, "My lawyer promised, not me." The undertaking is the client's promise.
Second: An undertaking to the court is different from an undertaking to a party. If you promise the other side in a settlement agreement, you may be in breach of contract. But if you promise the court, you are in contempt. The distinction is critical. Contempt proceedings are maintainable only when the undertaking is given to the court, not merely to the opposing party.
Third: The court can void transactions made in breach of an undertaking. Even if a pendente lite transfer is not void ab initio under general law, a court in contempt proceedings can declare such transactions void to maintain the majesty of law. The court can direct reversal of transactions to nullify any advantage gained from contumacious conduct. The 13 sale deeds were declared non est.
Fourth: Purchasers have no locus in contempt proceedings. A person who buys land from a contemnor, even if bona fide, cannot be heard in contempt proceedings. Contempt is between the court and the contemnor. The purchaser's remedy lies elsewhere — against the seller for recovery of the sale consideration.
Fifth: Apology is not a get-out-of-jail card. An apology, even if unconditional and bona fide, should not be accepted as a matter of course. If the conduct has caused serious damage to institutional dignity, the court should not show compassion. Disobedience with impunity and total consciousness deserves punishment.
THE PLAY: If you give an undertaking to a court — through your advocate — you are personally bound. Breach it, and you face imprisonment, fines, and the voiding of any transaction made in breach. Apology may not save you.
What the Court Ordered
The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction. It directed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on accused 3.1 and 3.2 in lieu of imprisonment, with a fine. Accused 3.3, 3.4, and 4 were sentenced to two months simple imprisonment with a fine. The 13 sale deeds were declared non est, cancelled, and set aside. The court directed restoration of the status quo ante as on 14 October 2015 — the date of the undertaking. The purchasers were left to recover their sale consideration from the contemnors.
Why This Matters in Practice
For advocates: When you give an undertaking on instructions, ensure your client understands the consequences. A breach is not just a breach of contract — it is a criminal contempt. The client cannot hide behind you.
For founders and CFOs: If you are in litigation and your lawyer gives an undertaking to the court about not alienating assets, take it seriously. Selling assets in breach of that undertaking can land you in jail. It can also void the sale, leaving the buyer with a claim against you — and you with a criminal record.
For purchasers: Buying land that is subject to a court undertaking is risky. Even if you are bona fide, you have no right to be heard in contempt proceedings. Your only remedy is to sue the seller for recovery of the price. You cannot keep the land.
The Supreme Court left open the contemnors' remedy to recover the sale consideration from the purchasers — a small mercy. But the message is clear: the rule of law demands respect for judicial institutions. Solutions through numbers over law subvert constitutional values, as the Court quoted from Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 442.
The bottom line: An undertaking to the court is not a suggestion. It is a promise backed by the coercive power of contempt. Break it, and you lose your land, your money, and your freedom — in that order.