The Delhi High Court has held Mohit Singh, erstwhile Managing Director of Shipra Estate Limited, guilty of civil contempt for breaching a court undertaking to pay Rs 3.20 crore and for an incorrect status quo statement on flats that had already been sold.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held Mohit Singh guilty of civil contempt on a petition by Mansi Brar, finding that he wilfully breached his undertaking to pay her Rs 3,20,00,000 by 31 March 2026 and that a status quo statement made on his instructions in 2022 was incorrect [Mansi Brar v. Mohit Singh].
A single-judge Bench of Justice Amit Sharma, in a judgment dated 1 October 2026, held the respondent guilty of ‘civil contempt’ under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court recorded that Singh, appearing in person on 21 August 2026, promised once more to honour his undertaking:
“Even on 21.08.2026, before this Court, the respondent, who was present in person before this Court had made a statement that he will abide by his undertaking, but the conduct of the respondent shows that despite opportunities the same has not been complied with.”
Background of the case
Mansi Brar had entered into MoUs between 2016 and 2018 with the partnership firm M/s Shipra Estate Limited & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Limited, executed through Singh as authorised signatory. He had also signed personal guarantees for the firm’s performance.
In her petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [O.M.P.(I)(COMM) No. 58-62/2022], a Coordinate Bench on 28 March 2022 recorded counsel’s statement, made on instructions, that status quo would be maintained on the title and possession of the MoU properties until the arbitrator decided the matter under Section 17.
Brar then moved contempt, alleging that flats covered by the MoUs had been sold to third parties. Directed on 7 August 2025 to state the status of the properties, Singh filed an affidavit dated 2 September 2025 disclosing that the flats were sold even before the 28 March 2022 order. A later affidavit blamed the firm’s sales team and tendered an unconditional apology.
By an affidavit dated 18 December 2025, Singh undertook to pay Rs 1 crore by 28 February 2026 and the remaining Rs 2.20 crore by 31 March 2026. He paid Rs 1 crore by demand draft on 30 March 2026. The balance was not paid despite listings on 4 May, 18 May, 15 July, 28 July and 21 August 2026, including a “last and final opportunity”.
What the parties argued
Counsel for Brar contended that third-party rights had been created in breach of the recorded statements, and relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in In Re, Perry Kansagra to argue that a person who makes a false statement to deceive the Court is guilty of contempt.
Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, for Singh, argued that there was no wilful disobedience. He submitted that a settlement agreement dated 22 February 2023 had novated the 2022 terms, that Brar had received Rs 3 crore under it, and that the revived arbitration ended in an award dated 29 December 2023 for Rs 6,05,00,000 with 12 per cent interest, now under challenge under Section 34. He called the contempt plea a substitute for execution, said the 2022 statement was made for the firm in his absence, and pointed to the insolvency of Shipra Estate Limited and his own personal insolvency proceedings.
What the High Court held
Justice Sharma found the claim that Singh was not involved in the sales contrary to the record, since the MoUs were executed through him. On the status quo statement, the Court held:
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent had made an incorrect statement with respect to maintenance of status quo.”
The Court added that the true position surfaced only after its specific direction, and that the 28 March 2022 order “was passed based on such non-disclosure/material suppression”.
The insolvency plea did not help him. The Court noted that he had disclosed the personal insolvency in the very affidavit of undertaking:
“Despite the same, the respondent being well aware of the insolvency proceedings pending against him, had given undertaking before this Court for paying the amount, which has not been done by him till date.”
Outcome
On the breach of the undertaking, the Bench held:
“Even otherwise, the undertaking given to this Court by the respondent by affidavit dated 18.12.2025 to pay Rs.3,20,00,000/- on or before 31.03.2026 for settling his outstanding disputes with the petitioner has not been complied with, despite several opportunities. Thus, the respondent has also wilfully breached the said undertaking as well.”
Singh was accordingly held guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b). The judgment does not record any sentence; it directs that it be uploaded on the Court’s website forthwith.
Why The Civil Contempt Judgment Matters
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act treats wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court as civil contempt. The ruling applies that plainly: a payment undertaking filed on affidavit is a promise to the Court, and repeated adjournments to honour it narrow, rather than widen, the room for excuses. Financial distress the contemnor knew about when he gave the undertaking was not accepted as a defence.
The judgment also draws on the Supreme Court’s line that a statement which misleads the Court interferes with the administration of justice. A status quo assurance given on instructions must reflect the true position of the property, and a later settlement or arbitral award does not cure it.
Case Title: Mansi Brar v. Mohit Singh [CONT.CAS(C) 1279/2022 & CM APPL. 6324/2023]
Bench: Justice Amit Sharma
Date of Judgment: 1 October 2026
Appearances: Advocates Zeeshan Diwan and Harsha for the Petitioner; Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal with Advocates Rudra Pratap, Tushar Randhawa, Rahul Sharma and Ali Ibrahim for the Respondent; Respondent in person