D.S. Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Syrus Marketing And Anr. on 12 December, 2005
He also relied upon the decisions in Mrs. Mohini Sayal v. Shri Kaushal Kumar : and J.P. Goyal v. Ajeet Kaur to draw a parallel between the orders passed in rent proceedings where courts grant time for vacating and an undertaking in the usual manner is recorded from the tenant for vacating the premises. He submitted that in such cases although execution is one remedy available, the courts have never shied away from taking up contempt proceedings whenever there has been a breach of an undertaking given by the tenant for vacating the premises. In the same manner, he submitted that the respondent gave an undertaking that the cheque would not be dishonoured on presentation yet the cheque was dishonoured and the fact that the decree was otherwise executable did not make any difference to the present contempt proceedings.