According to a recent observation by the Delhi High Court while dealing with a Contempt Petition, parties involved in legal proceedings should not undertake their commitments lightly. They are expected to wholeheartedly commit to and make conscientious efforts to fulfil the obligations they undertake. Justice Jasmeet Singh, the Single Judge Bench, stated in its order that court proceedings carry solemnity and seriousness.

Parties cannot give undertakings without intending to honour them, or at least they must make sincere and conscious efforts to comply with them. The judicial system cannot function if undertakings are given, and the parties are permitted to renege from them without any reason. The Court in contempt proceedings is responsible for maintaining the dignity and majesty of the Court, and any act and conduct of a party that lowers the dignity and majesty of the Court would amount to contempt.

The Delhi High Court received a Contempt Petition from State Trading Corporation of India against officials of Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. seeking the commencement of contempt proceedings for breaching a commitment made in connection with a Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Trial Court. The Petitioner submitted that Akshata Mercantile misled the Trial Court by giving a false undertaking to delay adjudication of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

As per the statement recorded before the Trial Court, the Respondent officials pledged that Akshata Mercantile would remit a sum ranging from Rs. 10 crores to Rs. 15 crores monthly to the State Trading Corporation. Moreover, they assured that the entire outstanding amount would be settled within a span of 6 to 8 months. The Court acknowledged the validity of the undertaking given before the Trial Court and rejected the Respondent's submission that the undertaking was conditional and that there was no timeline fixed.

The High Court stated that the terms of the settlement are neither vague nor devoid of timelines. The Respondents had also undertaken to pay Rs. 10 – 15 crores monthly and to liquidate the total outstanding within 6 – 8 months starting from 01.08.2014. The High Court referred to the case of Priya Gupta v. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, (2013) 11 SCC 404, on the aspect of apology tendered by the Respondent.

The Court observed that the term "bona fide" has to be examined in the context of a given case and cannot be understood in the abstract. The attendant circumstances, the behaviour of the contemnor, and the remorse or regret on his part are some of the relevant considerations that weigh with the Court in deciding such an issue.

Where a person has persistently attempted to over-reach the process of the Court and has persisted with the illegal act done in wilful violation of the orders of the Court, it will be difficult for the Court to accept an unconditional apology even if it is made at the threshold of the proceedings. The High Court rejected the apology, stating that "the apology has to be seen with regard to the nature of disobedience and the pre and post-circumstances surrounding the apology." In the present factual matrix, and the conduct of the Respondent to not make the payment as agreed between the parties and recorded as per the order dated 04.08.2014 and repeatedly asking for extensions to delay the proceedings, the apology of the Respondent cannot be said to be bona fide.

The High Court held the Respondent guilty of contempt and granted 4 weeks to file a reply to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt for non-compliance with the undertaking given before the Trial Court.