Iyer vs Iyer and Another – sllr 2005 volume 2 page 180

In the case between IYER (representing parties with rights to administer the Sellasannathy Temple) and IYER AND ANOTHER (including the 1st defendant tasked with depositing funds in accordance with a court directive), the court addressed the propriety of initiating proceedings to examine the defendant under Section 219 of the Civil Procedure Code in the absence of a formal money decree. The determination was made that, despite the lack of a conventional money decree, the defendant’s explicit undertaking to deposit specific sums constituted an enforceable order of court and justified judicial inquiry upon breach. The underlying legal principle reaffirmed is that the court retains inherent authority to enforce undertakings given by parties to the court, particularly where such undertakings ar