9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year 2003, an application being I.A. No. 220/2006 was filed jointly by the parties under Order 23 R.3 CPC stating that the suit be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. According to the compromise, the respondent, Rajiv Gupta, was to get two properties, namely, Property No. 4, Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and Property No. 5, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, as his absolute properties and the present petitioner, Sanjay Gupta, who had power of attorney in respect of Property No. 4, Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, handed over the documents of the said property in original to Rajiv Gupta and signed all the necessary documents in order to perfect his title. In addition to this, Sanjay Gupta, the petitioner, also gave an amount of Rs. 3.50 crores through pay order dated 5.1.2006 drawn on American Express Bank Ltd. and another sum of Rs. 3 crores through two post dated cheques of Rs. 1.50 crores each dated 5.1.2009, which were subsequently replaced by a pay order dated 6.1.2009 for a sum of Rs. 3 crores drawn on Standard Chartered Bank. A sum of approximately Rs. 80 lacs was also paid to Rajiv Gupta on 5.1.2006 on account of payment to D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for both the plaintiff as well as the defendants state that there is no dispute with regard to defendant No. 4 who happens to be the daughter of Mr. L.R. Gupta, the defendant No. 2, and the sister of the plaintiff and she has also not chosen to appear in these proceedings throughout, despite service. Therefore, this compromise which is being effected is essentially between the plaintiff on the one hand and defendants 2 and 3 on the other hand. Other terms of the compromise are set out in the application which is exhibited as Exhibit C -1. 3. The only two formalities which remained to be completed were the handing over of the pay order and two postdated cheques. The pay order is of the sum of Rs. 3.50 crores and the two cheques are for Rs. 1.50 crores each. This pay order and the two cheques have been handed over to the plaintiff who is present in court and he acknowledges the receipt of the same. The defendant No. 3 has signed these two cheques and he undertakes that the same shall be honoured on presentation on the due dates. The keys of 4, Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi are also handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff who is present in court and who had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliance is placed by the learned counsel on the judgment passed in C.S. (OS) No. 1938/2008 titled Radhesh Singh vs. Vineet Singh decided on 22.5.2014 as well as on Union of India & Others vs. Subedar Devassy PV; : (2006) 1 SCC 613. ( 7. ) It is also contended by Mr. Vashisht that so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no undertaking given by the respondents or that there is an arbitration agreement in the compromise application or that the present contempt petition is barred by limitation having been filed on 8.11.2012, are of no consequence inasmuch as on the face of it, the respondents have failed to carry out their respective obligations in terms of the order passed by the court. ( 8. ) The learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently contested the contempt petition. A short reply has been filed apart from various objections regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground of limitation and availability of an alternative efficacious remedy by way of arbitration. Further, it is stated that the petitioner can seek execution of the decree which has already been availed of. The respondents have also taken the plea that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt had rightly observed that in terms of the compromise between the parties, a decree be drawn and that decree has to be executed through normal processes of law as provided under CPC and not under threat of imprisonment for having allegedly violated the court order. ( 11. ) The petitioner in his petition has already observed that he has already applied for execution of the decree. Having chosen to file an execution petition for getting the decree executed, it is not open, in my view, for the petitioner to file the present contempt petition or in other words, it can be assumed that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner only with a view to bring to bear pressure on the respondents to succumbs to the settlement in terms of the compromise, which cannot be permitted to be done at the instance of one of the parties. The purpose of the contempt proceedings is not to satisfy the whims and fancies of one party nor compel the other party to submit to the dictates of the party, who has filed the contempt petition. ( 12. ) So far as reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on Rama Narang's case (supra) to support his contention that the present contempt proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
