Clarificatory Statement Not a Binding Undertaking for Contempt: Supreme Court
Case Title: RAS AL KHAIMAH INVESTMENT AUTHORITY VERSUS MATRIX PHARMACORP PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 12993-94 OF 2025
Coram: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Court Observation
“The Statement made by IQuest before the Commercial Court, Hyderabad in its Counter Affidavit as recorded in the order dated 01.05.2024, cannot be treated as unconditional undertaking and hence the findings of the High Court that the statement does not invite a contempt action is upheld…”,
“if there was an undertaking given by the Counsel on behalf of his client the undertaking should be carefully construed to find out the extent; and nature of the undertaking actually given by the person concerned. It is not open to the Court to assume an implied undertaking when there is none on the record.”
“cannot be treated as a firm conviction to qualify as an undertaking” and was instead “merely a clarificatory statement.”
“…we are in agreement with the findings of the High Court. The Statement made by IQuest before the Commercial Court, Hyderabad in its Counter Affidavit as recorded in the order dated 01.05.2024, cannot be treated as a firm conviction to qualify as an undertaking in terms of Babu Ram Gupta (supra) and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., In re. (Supra). It is merely a clarificatory statement. All that is said by the IQuest was that at that point in time it had decided not to go ahead with the acquisition of Viatris.”
Clarificatory Statement Not a Binding Undertaking for Contempt: Supreme Court
