9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Auction and Payment Terms 2. Rescheduling of Payment 3. Non-Compliance with Payment Terms 4. Legal Actions and Court Orders 5. Contempt of Court Detailed Analysis: 1. Auction and Payment Terms: On 8.10.1980, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) auctioned a Commercial Tower Plot in Jhandewalan, New Delhi, which was won by Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (Skipper) with a bid of Rs. 9.82 crores. Skipper deposited 25% of the bid amount, and the DDA confirmed the bid on 14.10.1980. Skipper was required to pay the remaining 75% within 90 days as per the auction conditions. 2. Rescheduling of Payment: The Government of India directed the DDA to reschedule the recovery of the remaining 75% with interest. Consequently, Skipper entered into a license agreement on 11.8.1987, paying 50% of the original bid and securing the rest through a bank guarantee. Installments were to be paid every six months, starting from 15.9.1987. 3. Non-Compliance with Payment Terms: Skipper failed to comply with the payment schedule. Despite several extensions and indulgences, including a deferred recovery order from the Lt. Governor on 4.10.1988, Skipper did not fulfill its payment obligations. The DDA recovered a partial amount by encashing the bank guarantee but faced continuous non-payment issues from Skipper. 4. Legal Actions and Court Orders: Skipper filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court in August 1989, seeking relief related to building plans and construction permissions. Various interim orders were passed, including one on 19.3.1990 allowing Skipper to commence construction without depositing dues. Skipper repeatedly sought extensions and failed to comply with court orders, leading to multiple legal actions, including the DDA's Special Leave Petition (SLP) and subsequent orders from the Supreme Court. 5. Contempt of Court: Despite clear court orders, Skipper continued to violate terms by issuing advertisements and creating third-party rights. The Supreme Court noted deliberate disobedience and willful actions undermining the court's authority. The contemners, Tejwant Singh and Surinder Kaur, were found guilty of criminal contempt for filing a suit (No. 770 of 1993) after the dismissal of their SLP and for creating third-party interests in defiance of the court's order dated 29.1.1991. Judgment: The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 129 and Article 142 of the Constitution, sentencing Tejwant Singh to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000, and Surinder Kaur to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000. The court also ordered the attachment of properties and bank accounts of the contemners and their immediate family. The sentence of imprisonment was deferred subject to conditions, including furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 11 crores and depositing the amount by specified deadlines. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the judiciary's integrity and the consequences of undermining its authority.
|
