A significant ruling on judicial authority and compliance has emerged from the Bombay High Court, affirming that deliberate non-appearance before a court, despite clear knowledge of a non-bailable warrant, constitutes contempt regardless of police inaction. This judgment reinforces the principle that litigants cannot evade judicial process by relying on procedural lapses by enforcement agencies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Subhas Ganesh Mallikarjun Dattangire, sought enforcement of a maintenance order against the respondent, Dnyaneshwar Subhas Ganesh Dattangire, who had consistently failed to comply with court-directed payments. Despite multiple orders, the respondent remained non-compliant, prompting the court to issue a non-bailable warrant (NBW) on 03.11.2025.
Procedural History
- 03.11.2025: Non-bailable warrant issued against respondent no.2 for non-appearance and non-payment.
- 12.01.2026: Court directed MIDC Police Station, Latur to explain failure to execute NBW.
- 04.02.2026: Police constable submitted a belated communication claiming the warrant was received on 04.12.2025, but the report was due by 01.12.2025 - indicating a clear delay.
- Despite these delays, the respondent was present in court on 04.02.2026 and had been aware of the NBW since its issuance.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought strict enforcement of the maintenance order and punishment for contempt. The respondent, through counsel, sought cancellation of the NBW on humanitarian grounds, citing an upcoming daughter’s marriage, and offered partial payment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether deliberate non-appearance before a court, despite actual knowledge of a non-bailable warrant, constitutes contempt of court even when police execution is delayed or ineffective.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the respondent’s conduct amounted to wilful defiance of court orders. Reliance was placed on K. Veeraswami v. Union of India to establish that contempt is not excused by police inaction. The respondent’s presence in court on 04.02.2026, after months of evasion, demonstrated conscious avoidance.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel contended that the NBW could not be enforced due to police failure to execute it within the stipulated time. They invoked principles of natural justice and humanitarian considerations, citing the daughter’s marriage and offered immediate partial payment as a gesture of goodwill.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the argument that police inaction absolves a contemnor of liability. It emphasized that the duty to appear arises from the court’s order, not from police efficiency. The respondent had been present in court on multiple occasions and was fully aware of the NBW. His failure to surrender voluntarily, despite this knowledge, was not mere negligence but wilful disobedience.
"The existence of a non-bailable warrant is not a mere procedural formality; it is a judicial command. When a person, fully aware of such a command, chooses not to appear, he cannot shield himself behind the inefficiency of the executive arm."
The Court further noted that the respondent’s offer of partial payment and undertaking to pay the balance within a week did not negate the prior contempt. The marriage invitation, while accepted as evidence of personal circumstance, did not constitute a legal justification for defying court orders.
The Court distinguished State of Maharashtra v. Suresh where delay was due to genuine medical emergency, noting that here, the respondent’s conduct was consistent with evasion.
The Verdict
The respondent won on the immediate relief of NBW cancellation, but the Court held that his conduct constituted contempt of court. The NBW was cancelled on condition of depositing Rs.20,000 immediately and the full arrears within one week, with personal appearance mandated on the next date. Failure would trigger immediate arrest and contempt proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Appearance Is Contempt Even If Warrant Is Not Executed
- Practitioners must advise clients that knowledge of a warrant triggers personal legal obligation to appear.
- Police delay or non-execution cannot be used as a defense to avoid contempt liability.
- Courts will not tolerate strategic evasion under the guise of administrative inefficiency.
Partial Compliance Does Not Erase Prior Contempt
- Offering partial payment or making promises does not absolve prior wilful disobedience.
- Courts may suspend enforcement measures conditionally, but contempt remains actionable.
- Any future non-compliance will result in immediate punitive action, including arrest.
Judicial Discretion Is Procedurally Grounded
- Courts retain discretion to cancel warrants on undertakings, but only after establishing contempt has occurred.
- Documentation like marriage invitations may be accepted for humanitarian consideration, but not as legal justification.
- Practitioners must ensure clients understand that undertakings are binding and failure to comply will be treated as fresh contempt.
