Delhi High Court - Orders
Subhash Chand vs Ranjan Jain on 13 October, 2025
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 419/2023
SUBHASH CHAND .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Namit Suri and Ms. Surabhi
Sinha, Advocates.
versus
RANJAN JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rahul Kashyap and Mr. Suresh
Chandra, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 13.10.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition under Sections 11/12 read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950, has been filed seeking the following prayers: -
"It is, therefore, prayed in the interest of justice that:
a. proceedings may be initiated against the Contemnor/Respondent and it may be punished for committing contempt of the Ld. Trial Court's Order dated 25.02.2023 read with Contemnor/Respondent's statement dated 25.02.2023 and Settlement Agreement dated 24.02.2023 in accordance with law, and;
b. The Contemnor/Respondent may be forthwith directed to comply with his statement dated 25.02.2023 given before Ld. Trial Court and Settlement Agreement dated 24.02.2023;
c. the costs of this case may also be awarded to the Petitioner, and;
d. any other or further relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be granted to the Petitioner."
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08
3. The present petition arises out of proceedings in Ex.No.34/2020 initiated on behalf of the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), against the respondent for the execution of Arbitral Award dated 21.07.2019 passed in favour of the petitioner herein in Arbitration Suit No. 26/2011-12.
4. A dispute arose between the parties and petitioner filed a claim in Arbitration/Suit No.26/2011-12 for a recovery of a total of Rs.19,25,056/-. The claim of the petitioner was adjudicated by a learned Sole Arbitrator vide Arbitral Award dated 21.07.2019 whereby, an amount of Rs.18,06,443/- including interest of Rs.1,18,611/- calculated @ 12% p.a. along with future interest @12 % till the realisation of the award was awarded in favour of the petitioner.
5. Petitioner then, filed the aforesaid execution petition, as noted hereinabove, before learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Shahdara District, Karkardooma, seeking execution of the arbitral award passed in his favour. During the pendency of the said execution petition, parties arrived at an amicable full and final settlement for a total amount of Rs.28,27,992/- (settlement amount) vide settlement agreement dated 24.02.2023 on the basis of certain terms and conditions which have been reproduced as under: -
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08
6. Learned District Judge vide order dated 25.02.2023 disposed of the aforesaid execution petition, Ex.No. 34/2020, as settled/compromised as the matter stood amicably settled between the parties and statement of the judgment debtor/respondent herein was also recorded to the aforesaid extent.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 The statement of the respondent/judgment debtor recorded before the learned Distt. Judge on 25.02.2023 is reproduced hereinbelow: -
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08
7. The respondent thereafter, despite having undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement as well as the undertaking given to the learned Distt. Judge defaulted in making the payment to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid settlement has only received a sum of Rs.30,000/- and other post-dated cheques bearing Nos. 151383 & 151384 for amounts Rs.2,28,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively, have been dishonoured and returned unpaid by the bank vide returning memos dated 18.03.2023 with remarks "Funds Insufficient".
8. Hence, the present contempt petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid prayers against the respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has wilfully disobeyed and failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement between the parties and the undertaking given to the Court based on which the execution petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was disposed of as settled/compromised by the learned Distt. Judge vide order dated 25.02.2023. It is submitted that the respondent is guilty of contempt of Court as he is in wilful disobedience and breach of undertaking given to the Court in view of his statement recorded by learned Distt. Judge on 25.02.2023 and the same has been duly recorded in order dated 25.02.2023.
10. It is submitted that learned Execution Court vide order dated 07.02.2020 had issued summons for appearance of the respondent and he had avoided appearance despite service for nearly two years till the issuance of recovery certificate by the learned Execution Court. It is further pointed out This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 that vide order dated 10.02.2023, the learned Execution Court has also issued show cause to the respondent as to why he should not be sentenced to civil imprisonment for his deliberate and intentional default and the aforesaid settlement agreement was entered by the respondent just after the issuance of said show cause.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that did not intend to not comply with the undertaking given to learned Distt. Judge. It is submitted that the delay in payment of settlement amount has occurred on account of the poor financial condition of the respondent and the said settlement agreement was entered with the petitioner due to Covid-19 and demonetisation. It is further submitted that owing to the poor financial condition of the respondent, his house has already been mortgaged and physical possession of the same is with the bank and thus, non-compliance in non-payment was not deliberate. It is the case of the respondent that he want to sell his house and pay dues to his creditors but the petitioner has already disconnected the electricity after moving an application before learned SDM and due to this reason, the property of the respondent could not be sold and the same has been defamed in the local area. It is further submitted that the respondent has also filed insolvency petition vide CS No. 722/2023 and the same is pending before learned ADJ, Karkardooma Courts.
12. It is further submitted that learned Distt. Judge, in the execution petition filed by the petitioner, has already directed to complete steps for sale of mortgaged immovable property by Court auction and 25% of the amount of sale proceed has been directed to be deposited by highest bidder on the auction This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 date by way of demand draft in the name of the Court and a copy of order dated 24.11.2023 passed by learned Distt. Judge has been placed on record in this regard. It is submitted that the petitioner therefore, cannot be allowed to take recourse to two parallel proceedings at the same time against the respondent as the execution proceedings are pending and being proceeded in accordance with law. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114, to contend that a settlement between the parties can be enforced through execution and not by contempt, unless the same is coupled with a specific undertaking to the Court. Thus, the present contempt petition is not maintainable against the respondent.
13. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the ground of financial inability, to pay the settlement amount as mentioned in the settlement agreement, taken by the respondent in reply to the present petition cannot be taken into consideration at this stage as the same belies the bonafide of the respondent to fulfil the undertaking given to the Court. It is further pointed out that the said stand has been taken by respondent to mislead the Court as his house was mortgaged and physical possession thereof was already taken by Punjab National Bank at the time when the respondent made the statement before the learned Distt. Judge in the execution proceedings and the same has also been stated by him in his reply. It is further submitted that the present petition is maintainable as it is settled law that contempt jurisdiction would not cease merely because the order or decree of which contempt is alleged is executable under law, even without having recourse to the contempt proceedings. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urban Infrastructure Real Estate This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 Fund v. Dharmesh S. Jain & Anr., (2022) 6 SCC 662, in support of this contention. It is further submitted that the respondent had also filed a petition under Section 179 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for adjudicating him as insolvent and the same was dismissed by learned Distt. Judge vide order dated 16.07.2024 in CS No.722/2023. Said order has been handed up in Court today and the same is taken on record.
14. Reliance has also been placed on Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association v. Shaji Augustine, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 931, to contend that the respondent cannot be permitted to reset the clock while having taken advantage of the judicial proceedings and availed time while not intending to comply with the undertaking given to the Court as same amounts to civil contempt. Reliance has also been placed on Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (deceased) Rep. by LRs & Ors., (2023) 17 SCC 545, to contend that undertaking or assurance given to Court based on which the Court decides upon a particular course of action would definitely fall within confines "undertaking" as stipulated under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
16. Learned Distt. Judge in Ex.No.34/2020, on the basis of the settlement agreement entered between the parties on 24.02.2023 and after recording statement of the respondent, as noted hereinbefore, had passed the following order on 25.02.2023: -
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08
17. The execution petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of as settled/compromised by the learned Distt. Judge in view of the settlement between the parties and the statement of the judgment debtor/respondent recorded by the said Court on 25.02.2023. Perusal of the statement of the respondent, as reproduced hereinbefore, shows that he had stated that he shall abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement, Ex. JD/X-1, and in default, he shall be responsible for the legal consequences. Further, the perusal of the terms and conditions of the said settlement, particularly clause 8 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 thereof, shows that it was also agreed between the parties that in case of breach/violation/wilful/deliberate disobedience, the party breaching the terms shall be liable for contempt proceedings.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari (supra), while interpreting the implications and meaning of the term "undertake", has observed and held as under: -
"62. This Court in Rama Narang [Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114] while referring to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, had noticed that it did not contain many of the provisions of the 1971 Act for the legislature had left formulation of the law of contempt to the Courts, which had resulted in conflicting views expressed by different High Courts. Reference was made to the conflicting view expressed by the Calcutta High Court in Nisha Kanto Ray [Nisha Kanto Ray Chaudhuri v. Saroj Bashini Guha, 1947 SCC OnLine Cal 167 : AIR 1948 Cal 294] and the Bombay High Court in Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka [Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemkav.
Kapurchand Ltd., 1950 SCC OnLine Bom 12 : AIR 1950 Bom 336] . In the former case, it was held that a compromise decree passed by the Court containing an undertaking was nothing more than an agreement of the parties with the sanction of the Court super-added. The order passed by the Court cannot mean anything more than an agreement and had no greater sanctity than the agreement itself. Per contra, the Bombay High Court, in Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka [Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka v. Kapurchand Ltd., 1950 SCC OnLine Bom 12 : AIR 1950 Bom 336] had drawn a distinction between the execution proceedings and proceedings for contempt which arise from wilful default of an undertaking. The judgment referred to the long-standing practice as per which the expression "undertaking" had come to acquire a technical and legal meaning and understanding. It was observed that the expression "when a party undertakes" is used to give an undertaking to the court as distinct from when a counsel states that he undertakes on behalf of his client. When a person gives an undertaking to the court, it is not given to the other side but to the court itself, and that being said must carry sanctity. Therefore, when a court passes a decree after an This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 undertaking was embodied in the consent terms, it would show that the court had sanctioned the particular course and put its imprimatur on the consent terms. This Court agreed with the view expressed in Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka [Bajranglal Gangadhar Khemka v. Kapurchand Ltd., 1950 SCC OnLine Bom 12 : AIR 1950 Bom 336] in preference over the view expressed in by the Calcutta High Court in Nisha Kanto Ray [Nisha Kanto Ray Chaudhuri v. Saroj Bashini Guha, 1947 SCC OnLine Cal 167 : AIR 1948 Cal 294] . Thereafter, reference was made to Sanyal Committee Report, which had preceded framing of the enactment of the 1971 Act and thereupon interpreting Section 2(b) of the 1971 Act, this Court in Rama Narang [Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114] had observed : (Rama Narang case [Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114] , SCC p. 123, para 18) "18. The Act has been duly widened. It provides inter alia for definitions of the terms and lays down firmer bases for exercise of the court's jurisdiction in contempt. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt as meaning "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court". Analysed, the definition provides for two categories of cases, namely, (1) wilful disobedience to a process of court, and (2) wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. As far as the first category is concerned, the word "any" further indicates the wide nature of the power. No distinction is statutorily drawn between an order passed after an adjudication and an order passed by consent. This first category is separate from the second and cannot be treated as forming part of or taking colour from the second category. The legislative intention clearly was to distinguish between the two and create distinct classes of contumacious behaviour. Interestingly, the courts in England have held that the breach of a consent decree of specific performance by refusal to execute the agreement is punishable by way of proceedings in contempt (seeC.H. Giles and Co. Ltd. v. Morris [C.H. Giles and Co. Ltd. v. Morris, (1972) 1 WLR 307 (2) (Ch D)] )."
(emphasis supplied) This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08
63. Thus, it is evident that Section 2(b) of the Act, which defines civil contempt, consists of two different parts and categories, namely, (i) wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or (ii) wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. The expression "any" used with reference to the first category indicates the wide nature of power given to the Court and that the statute does not draw a difference between an order passed after adjudication or an order passed by consent. The first part or category is distinct and cannot be treated as a part or taking colour from the second category. This Court consciously observed that the Courts in England have held that the breach of consent decree of performance by refusal to execute an agreement was punishable by way of contempt proceedings. With reference to the second part, in Rama Narang [Rama Narangv. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114] it was observed that giving of an undertaking is distinct from a consent order recording compromise. In the latter case of violation of compromise, no question of contempt arises, but the party can enforce the order of compromise either by execution or injunction from a Court. However, in the former case, when there is wilful disobedience, contempt application and proceedings would be maintainable. (See : Suman Chadha v. Central Bank of India [Suman Chadha v. Central Bank of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11536] ) **** **** ****
73. It is true that every undertaking given by a party to a litigation may not be an undertaking to the court; there is a difference between an undertaking given to the other party and an undertaking given to the court. The breach of an undertaking given to the other party may not constitute the contempt of court. However, whether a particular undertaking is an undertaking to the court or to the opposite party must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the language used. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the appellants that they had negotiated a settlement with the other side outside the court and reported the same to the High Court and the High Court proceeded to pass the order incorporating the undertaking given by the learned counsel upon instructions from the clients. Even if the parties, had negotiated a settlement outside the court and reported the same to the court and the court would This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 have passed an order, in terms of such understanding, there would be no scope to warrant that the undertaking was not given to the court.
74. An undertaking or an assurance given by a lawyer based upon which the court decides upon a particular course of action would definitely fall within the confines of "undertaking" as stipulated under Section 2(b) of the 1971 Act and the breach of which would constitute "civil contempt". As held in M. v. Home Office [M. v. Home Office, 1992 QB 270 : (1992) 2 WLR 73 (CA)] relied upon by this Court in Rama Narang [Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (2006) 11 SCC 114] that if a party or solicitor or counsel on his behalf, so as to convey to the court a firm conviction that an undertaking is being given, that party will be bound and it will be no answer that he did not think that he was giving it or that he was misunderstood. The breach of an undertaking given to a court by a person in a pending proceeding on the faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action is misconduct amounting to contempt.
**** **** ****
76. The High Court is right in saying that it is this undertaking given to the Court on 14-10-2015 that persuaded the respondents herein to withdraw the said appeal and it is such solemn assurance given to the court which per forced them to withdraw the appeal by recording the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contemnors."
(emphasis supplied)
19. Thus, the reliance placed on Rama Narang (supra) by learned counsel for the respondent is misplaced, as in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had recognised a category of cases wherein, there is wilful disobedience of an undertaking given to the Court, a contempt application and proceedings would be maintainable.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urban Infrastructure Real Estate This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 Fund (supra) had observed and held as under: -
"20. Further, it is trite law that the jurisdiction of a court under the Act, would not cease, merely because the order or decree of which contempt is alleged, is executable under law, even without having recourse to contempt proceedings.
**** **** ****
24. When a party which is required to comply with the terms or directions in an order has not done so within such time as stipulated in the order, two options are available to the party which was required to comply with such order:
(a) give an explanation to the Court as to the circumstances due to which the party could not comply with the order of the Court;
(b) seek for further time to comply with the order of the Court.
If a delay has occurred in complying with the terms of an order and the party which was to comply with the order has not resorted to either of the two aforestated options, then, the party responsible for delay in compliance, may be held to have committed contempt; vide State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh [State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh, (1997) 4 SCC 430] ."
21. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (supra), the respondent ought to have approached the concerned Court stating the circumstances owing to which he is not able to comply with the undertaking given to the Court. However, it has come on record that the respondent instead approached learned Distt. Judge in CS No.722/2023 by filing a petition under Section 179 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for adjudicating himself as insolvent and the same was dismissed by learned Distt. Judge vide order dated 16.07.2024. On a pointed query to the respondent as to whether the property referred to hereinbefore was mortgaged at the time of giving the undertaking before the learned Execution Court on 25.02.2023, it is submitted that the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 property was already mortgaged at the time when the statement of the respondent was recorded by the Court in pursuance of which the order dated 25.02.2023 was passed by learned Execution Court.
22. It is further pertinent to note that the aforesaid settlement agreement dated 24.02.2023 was also entered with the petitioner by the respondent after the learned Distt. Judge on 10.02.2023 had issued show cause to the respondent/judgment debtor as to why he be not sentenced to Civil Imprisonment for his deliberate and intentional default. Perusal of the order dated 10.02.2023 also shows that the respondent had appeared before the learned Distt. Judge in the said Execution proceedings after two years of the institution of the same. Thus, on the basis of the undertaking given on 25.02.2023, the learned Execution Court closed the proceedings before it.
23. Even during the pendency of the present petition, learned counsel for the respondent on 23.01.2024 had submitted that the property of the respondent is being auctioned and the respondent shall make the payment to the petitioner within a time bound manner accordingly. However, no such payment was made and on the next date of hearing, i.e., 11.03.2024, learned counsel for the respondent had sought some time to file reply and it was submitted that the property of the respondent was put on public auction, however, the said auction had failed. Learned Predecessor Bench on 11.03.2024 had observed that this submission of learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted as there is a valid settlement which has been entered between the parties and the same also forms part of the order dated 25.02.2023 and the same is binding on the respondent. Thereafter, on This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08 23.04.2025 learned Predecessor Bench had observed that the respondent is, prima facie, in contempt of undertaking given to the learned Executing Court on 24.02.20231 and in case, compliance is not made prior to the next date, further steps in the contempt proceedings shall be taken.
24. On 13.07.2025, this Court had to issue bailable warrants against the respondent to secure his presence. It is thus, apparent that the respondent is in wilful disobedience of the settlement agreement dated 24.02.2023 and his subsequent statement/undertaking recorded by learned Execution Court on 25.02.2023 in pursuance of which the execution proceedings initiated on behalf of the petitioner were disposed of as settled/compromised. Despite several opportunities being provided to him even during the pendency of the present petition, he has not complied with the said order. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, reads as under: -
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
**** **** ****
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;"
25. The conduct of the respondent reveals that he has wilfully disobeyed and breached the undertaking given to the Court as recorded in order dated 25.02.2023 passed by learned Distt. Judge in Ex.No.34/2020.
1Learned Execution Court had recorded the statement of the respondent on 25.02.2023 and passed the order seeking compliance on the same date.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent is guilty of "civil contempt" as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
27. In view thereof, list for submissions on point of sentence on 30.10.2025 at the 'End of the Board'.
28. Respondent shall remain physically present before this Court on the next date of hearing.
29. In the meantime, the respondent is also at liberty to place on record an affidavit demonstrating the mitigating circumstances showing that he deserves leniency in quantum of sentence before the next date of hearing.
30. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J OCTOBER 13, 2025/bsr/ns This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 22:27:08