Delhi High Court Holds Respondent Guilty of Contempt for Breaching Mediated Settlement; Finds Failure to Send Original Documents After Accepting Payment Was Wilful Disobedience of Court Order
Delhi High Court Says Court-Recorded Settlement Cannot Be Ignored After Accepting Benefits; Holds Respondent Guilty of Wilful and Deliberate Contempt
Facts
The contempt petition was filed by Anup Chawla against Kapil Chawla under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of an order dated 17 March 2021 passed by the Delhi High Court in Anup Chawla v. Delhi Development Authority Through its Chairman & Ors.
The underlying writ dispute had been settled through the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre by a Settlement Agreement dated 11 February 2021. When the writ petition was disposed of, Kapil Chawla personally stated before the Court that he would abide by the settlement. His undertaking was expressly accepted by the Court, and the writ petition was disposed of in terms of that agreement.
Under Clause 4 of the Settlement Agreement, Kapil Chawla, who was residing in Poland, was required to prepare specified documents and send scanned copies to his advocate within 20 days. After inspection of those documents, Anup Chawla was required to pay the first instalment of ₹3.36 lakh, following which Kapil Chawla was required to courier the originals through Blue Dart/DHL.
The documents included a Special Power of Attorney for execution of a Relinquishment Deed, an Article 4 affidavit, self-attested identification documents, an indemnity bond and an undertaking, duly apostilled or attested in Poland through the appropriate authorities.
The petitioner inspected the documents and paid the first instalment after deduction of applicable TDS. However, despite receiving the money, the respondent allegedly failed to dispatch the original documents.
Issues
The principal issue was whether Kapil Chawla’s continued failure to deliver the original documents, despite receiving the first settlement instalment, constituted wilful and deliberate disobedience of the High Court’s order within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Court also had to determine the legal significance of the respondent’s undertaking having been expressly accepted and incorporated into the order disposing of the earlier writ petition.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the obligations under the Settlement Agreement were clear and reciprocal.
Once the scanned documents were inspected and the first instalment of ₹3.36 lakh was paid, the respondent became obligated to send the originals to the petitioner. The petitioner maintained that he had performed his part of the settlement, but the respondent failed to perform the corresponding obligation.
It was submitted that this was not merely a private contractual breach. The Settlement Agreement formed the basis of the High Court’s order dated 17 March 2021, and the respondent’s undertaking to comply with it had been expressly accepted and recorded by the Court. Consequently, deliberate non-performance attracted civil contempt.
Respondent’s Position
The respondent ultimately did not participate in the final hearing.
On 11 March 2026, the Court had specifically warned that the matter would be heard ex parte if he failed to appear on the next date. Nevertheless, there was no appearance on his behalf on 19 May 2026 or 9 September 2026. The Court therefore proceeded ex parte.
Significantly, the Court found nothing on record showing that Kapil Chawla disputed either the Settlement Agreement itself or his obligation to hand over the agreed documents.
Analysis of the Law
Settlement Incorporated Into Court Order
The decisive feature was that the settlement was not merely an independent private arrangement.
Kapil Chawla had appeared before the High Court in the original writ proceedings and expressly undertaken to abide by the Settlement Agreement. The Court accepted that undertaking and disposed of the writ petition in terms of the settlement.
Accordingly, compliance with the settlement became an obligation flowing from the judicial order itself.
Wilful Disobedience
The Court examined whether the failure was deliberate rather than accidental or incapable of performance.
It found the Settlement Agreement to be “clear and unambiguous” and the respondent’s obligations specific. There was therefore no uncertainty about what he was required to do after receiving the first instalment.
The petitioner had completed inspection and made payment. Kapil Chawla nevertheless failed to dispatch the originals. Importantly, his acceptance of the money demonstrated that he had accepted and acted upon the Settlement Agreement.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not undertake any substantive precedent analysis. No individual Supreme Court or High Court precedent is discussed for determining civil contempt.
Instead, the decision turns directly on Section 2(b) and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the terms of the mediated settlement, the undertaking recorded in the 17 March 2021 order and the respondent’s subsequent conduct.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court identified several circumstances establishing wilful disobedience.
First, the respondent’s obligation was specific and unequivocal: after receiving the first instalment, he had to dispatch the original documents.
Second, the petitioner had performed his reciprocal obligation by making the payment after inspection.
Third, the respondent accepted that payment, thereby demonstrating his acceptance of and participation in the settlement arrangement.
Fourth, the contempt proceedings had remained pending since 2021. Although the respondent had appeared on various earlier occasions, he subsequently stopped participating for a considerable period despite the Court’s warning that the matter would proceed ex parte.
Finally, there was no material showing that he disputed the settlement or contended that he was not required to deliver the documents.
The Court therefore concluded that his continued failure to comply, coupled with his non-participation in the contempt proceedings, left “no manner of doubt” that the disobedience was wilful and deliberate.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held Kapil Chawla guilty of contempt of court for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 17 March 2021.
The contempt petition was accordingly allowed.
The Court did not impose the sentence in this judgment. Instead, it directed that the matter be listed on 30 October 2026 for sentencing and ordered Kapil Chawla to remain physically present before the Court on that date.
Case Details
Case: Anup Chawla v. Kapil Chawla
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: CONT.CAS(C) 777/2021
CNR: DLHC010329062021
Judge: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date: 10 September 2026
Result: Respondent held guilty of contempt for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the court-recorded mediated settlement; matter listed for sentencing on 30 October 2026 with direction for his physical presence.
