The definition of “undertaking” in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, is this: an undertaking is a formal promise to the court to do something or to abstain from doing anything.
The Supreme Court in Noorali Babul Thanewala Vs. K.M.M. Shetty and Ors. reported in (1990) 1 SCC 259 equated an undertaking to an order of injunction and said that breach of an undertaking amounted to contempt. The alleged contemnor may be asked to purge himself of the contempt. [See also Rama Narang (5) Vs. Ramesh Narang and Anr. reported in (2009) 16 SCC 126].
Undertaking given to a Court” under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
In Rita Markandey Vs. Surjit Singh Arora reported in (1996) 6 SCC 14, the Supreme Court through the judgment of Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee ruled that if instead of an undertaking a party made a representation before the Court which was acted upon by it and later the representation turned out to be untrue he was guilty of contempt in the same manner as if there was a breach of undertaking. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of stating that an undertaking given to the Court on facts which the maker knows to be false or which he knows shall not be carried out amounts to contempt as held in Dr. (Mrs.) Roshan Sam Joyce Vs. S. R. Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1881.
In order to ascertain whether a party has given an undertaking to the Court, the words of the party as recorded by the Court in its order or in the depositions or in any other documents are to be interpreted. If by the plain and ordinary grammatical meaning of the words, it is seen that a promise is made to the court, then no matter how the words are spoken or written, no matter whether the exact word “undertaking” is mentioned by the party, the Court must construe those words as a promise or pledge made to the court and consider it as an undertaking.
In Babu Ram Gupta Vs. Sudhir Bhasin and Anr. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1528, the Supreme Court opined that an undertaking must be express and in clear terms, free from any kind of ambiguity.
The undertaking given to the Court must be unqualified as laid down by a Division Bench of our Court in Suretennessa Bibi Vs. Chintaharan Das reported in AIR 1955 Calcutta 182.
That there is no particular form or language in which an undertaking is given or recorded was emphasized by a full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sardari Lal Vs. Ram Rakha reported in 1984 Cri L.J. 1098.
In M. Vs. Home Office reported in (1992) 4 A11 ER 97, the expression “undertaking” has been defined in the following manner:”
“[I]f a party, or solicitors or counsel on his behalf, so act as to convey to the court the 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.”