R. C. Lahoti ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying for an action against the defendants and for issuance of consequential orders so as to purge the contempt committed by the defendants-contemners by violating the order of the Court dated 21. 9. 1992. ( 2 ) SUIT No. 2680/90 was filed by the petitioner impleading the respondentscontemners as defendants. The case of the plaintikff was that to boost its image in public and amongstits customers and patterns. it had decided to have a video film prepared with the title excellence is its byline". The film depicted mainly the petitioner s manufacturing operations, vehicles manufactured, achievements made in the field of automobile industry etc. The film was prepared by the defendants. The defendants were asked to hand over the film to the plaintiff- petitioner but they failed to do so in spite of copyright in the U-matic film vesting in the plaintiff-company. The defendants did not appear to contest the suit inspite of having been noticed. After receiving ex-parte evidence, the Court passed a 35 decree on 21. 9. 92 in the following terms :- "i hereby pass ex parte decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring that copyright in the U-matic film "excellence is its by line" vests in the plaintiff-company. A decree of permanent injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintf and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from using in any manner, deal with or create any right or to part with the said U-matic film to any person. A decree of mandatory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to hand over the master print of the U-matic film and negatives etc to the plaintiff-company. " ( 3 ) THOUGH a period of about 2 years has lapsed by this time, the defendants have not complied with the command of the mandatory injunction issued by the Court. ( 4 ) IT is alleged in the petition for contempt that after the passing of the decree, through registered A/d letter dated 28. 11. 1992, the petitioner delivered the respondents with atrue copy of the order dated 21. 9. 92 demanding compliance therewith. This was followed by a legal notice dated 16 1. 1993. By yet another letter dated 7. 11. 1992, the petitioner delivered the respondents with atrue copy of the order dated 21. 9. 92 demanding compliance therewith. This was followed by a legal notice dated 16 1. 1993. By yet another letter dated 7. 5. 1993, the respondents were specifically warned that they were being afforded a last opportunity of compliance with the order of the Court, failing which they would face contempt proceedings. The defendants-respondents neither complied nor replied. ( 5 ) ON 17. 5. 93, this Court directed notice of present petition to be issued to the respondent no. 2 who is director of the Centre, the defendant No. 1. The notices were directed to be issued in ordinary manner as well as by registered post. In spite of service, the defendants did not care or bother to appear before the Court. As there was no resistance offered to the proceedings, on 25. 11. 93 the Court directed the petitioner to adduce evidence ex-parte on affidavits in support of averments made in the petition. The petitioner has adduced affidavit of Mr. B. S. Bhargava, Company Secretary of the petitioner-company who is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. He has substantiated on oath all the averments made m the contempt petition. He has also deposed to the various communications made by the petitioner-company to the respondents subsequent to the passing ot the decree. The conduct of the defendants showing utter absence of response to the process of the Court, their adamance in keeping away from the court proceedings more than indicates their audacity. It is clear that the defendants have no regard for the Court, to its process and commands and they do not bother to explain their misconduct even though called upon to do so. ( 6 ) CLAUSE (b) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt as willful disobedience to its judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other processof a Courtorwiufulbreachofundcrtakinggiventoa Court. Section 12 provides a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which extend to two thousand rupees or with both. The disobedience with the judgment and decree and direction ot this Court by the defendants has been wilful. Section 12 provides a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which extend to two thousand rupees or with both. The disobedience with the judgment and decree and direction ot this Court by the defendants has been wilful. It is very clearly made out from the contumacious conducted of the defendants, writ large on the face of 36 the material brought on record, seen in the light of the averments made by the petitioner substantiated by the oath of Mr. B. S. Bhargava. ( 7 ) NOT only the defendants have rendered themselves liable for the punishment, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that something more deserves to be done by the Court to purge the contempt. The learned Counsel has rightly relied on the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Nooali Babul Thanewala v. Sh. K. M. M. Shetty AIR 1990 SC 464 . Their Lordships have treated an undertaking given by a party at par with the order of the Court and held: "for the purpose of enforcing an undertaking that undertaking is treated as an order so that an undertaking, if broken, would involve the same consequences on the persons breaking that undertaking as would their disobedience to anorder foran injunction. It is settled law that breach of an injunction or breach of an undertaking given to a Court by a person in a civil proceeding on the faith of which the Court sanctions a particular course of action is misconduct amounting to contempt. The remedy in such circumstances may be in the form of a direction to the contemnor to purge the contempt or a sentence of imprisonment or fine or all of them. On the facts and circumstances of this case in the light of our finding that there was a breach of the undertaking we think that mere imposition of imprisonment or fine will not meet the ends of justice. There will have to be an order to purge the contempt by directing the first respondent-contemnor to deliver vacant possession immediately and issuing necessary further and consequential directions for enforcing the same. There will have to be an order to purge the contempt by directing the first respondent-contemnor to deliver vacant possession immediately and issuing necessary further and consequential directions for enforcing the same. " (emphasis supplied) ( 8 ) IT is held that the defendants have been guilty of civil contempt by causing willful disobedience of the order contained in the judgment and decree dated 21. 9. 92 passed by this Court. Not only the defendant deserves to be punished, incidental orders also deserve to be made so as to purge the contempt. It is directed that: (i) Warrant bailable in an amount of Rs. l,000. 00 shall issue and served on Shri Babbar Chopra, the respondent No. 2 requiring him to personally appear and show cause before the Court on-why punishment ]under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not imposed on him. (ii) A Court Commissioner shall visit the premises of the defendant situated at 241, Shopping Complex, Defence Colony Flyover, New Delhi and call upon the defendant No. 2 to produce master print as well as negatives of the film "excellence is its by line" and hand over the same to the petitioner. The Commissioner may take assistance of local police for securing compliance with the order. An amount of Rs. 2500. 00 shall be paid by way of fee to the Commissioner. (iii) Costs quantified at Rs. 5,000. 00 (which would include the Commissioner fee) shall be liable to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. 37 (iv) The Commissioner shall file his report in the Court soon on execution of the commission. Warrant of commission shall be issued to the Commissioner accompanied by a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.