2008 (6) TMI 636 - HC - Indian Laws

Application for contempt and an Application for review - willful and deliberate violation and disobedience of the order - mutation of the name of the writ petitioner in relation to the premises - Power of review - HELD THAT - It is settled law that the expressions any other sufficient reason mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously, that is to say, to excusable failure to bring to the notice of the Court new or important matters or error apparent on the face of the record. Upon an application for review the Court cannot proceed to deal with the case on the merits as if on an appeal. The Supreme Court of India in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Ors. 1979 (1) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT holds that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. Power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may, also, be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal - I am not satisfied that the judgment under review is erroneous on the face of it. This application for review is filed to re-argue the very same points rightly rejected by this Court - Therefore, this application for review stands rejected. Application for contempt - HELD THAT - Non-compliance of the order by the contemnors is admitted. By order dated December 3, 1998 this Court, inter alia, directed the respondents in the writ petition to mutate the name of the first petitioner, that is W. H. Targett (India) Limited, in the register instead and in place of Marble Trading Company Limited - An application for contempt is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation and disobedience of the said order. After filing of the application for contempt, an application for review is filed. In the application for review it is alleged that the charge of name to W H. Targett (India) Limited and the application for mutation to record the name of W. H. Targett (India) Limited are fraught with uncertainty, which was not brought to the attention of this Court. As already, found that in the application for review virtually the points taken in the affidavit-in-opposition are reiterated. It is not open to the contemnors to give a wrong interpretation of the order. In any view of the matter, the view so taken by the contemnors are not found to be legally sustainable. I hold that the stand taken by the contemnors is not bona fide. The contemnors are bound to comply with the order of this Court. Therefore, this is a fit case for taking action in contempt. However, as the application for review was filed, in order to giving contemnors an opportunity to purge the contempt before I pass the sentence, I adjourn the matter for 4 (four) weeks to enable the contemnors to report compliance, failing which this Court will proceed to pass appropriate orders in respect of the contempt. If not, the contemnors will run the risk of being sentenced. The office is directed to put up this matter on July 2, 2008 under the heading for orders.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for contempt alleging willful and deliberate violation of a court order.
2. Application for review and re-calling of the court order directing mutation of property.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Contempt:
The contempt application alleges willful and deliberate violation and disobedience of the order dated December 3, 1998, by Satya Brata Sinha, J., which directed the mutation of the name of the writ petitioner in relation to a property. The relevant clause in the perpetual lease required the lessee to obtain approval for any assignment or transfer and to pay a portion of the unearned increase in the value of the land. Despite the order, the respondents failed to act in terms of the judgment, leading to the filing of the contempt application on December 2, 1999. The court found that the respondents' interpretation of the order was not legally sustainable and that their non-compliance was not bona fide. The court decided to adjourn the matter for four weeks to allow the contemnors to comply with the order, failing which appropriate actions would be taken.

2. Application for Review:
The review application sought to re-call the order dated December 3, 1998, which directed the mutation of property in favor of the writ petitioner. The respondents argued that the change of name from Marble Trading Company Limited to W. H. Targett (India) Limited was not merely a change of name but a change of hands, necessitating compliance with the lease deed's provisions, particularly clause 2(13). They contended that the Hon'ble Judge did not consider the applicability of Sections 5 and 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which define and restrict the transfer of property. The court, however, held that the change of name did not constitute a transfer of interest in property and that the property remained with the same entity. The court also noted that under Sections 21 and 23 of the Companies Act, 1956, a change of name does not affect the company's rights or obligations. The review application was found to be an attempt to re-argue points already rejected and was thus dismissed.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the application for review, emphasizing that the change of name of the company did not constitute a transfer of property. The application for contempt was adjourned for four weeks to allow the contemnors to comply with the court's order, failing which appropriate actions would be taken. The court reiterated that the respondents' non-compliance was not bona fide and that they were bound to comply with the order.