9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy 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. The present contempt petition is totally misconceived. - Cont. Cas (C) No. 765/2012 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2014 - V.K.Shali J. Manish Vashisht, Sameer Vashisht, Dhruv Rohatgi, Rahul Gupta Advocates for the Respondent JUDGEMENT V.K. Shali, ( 1. ) The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner, Sanjay Gupta, against respondent No. 1, Rajiv Gupta and his sister -in -law (respondent No. 2), Alka Gupta on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 9.1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi; (ii) House No.A -2/14, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi; (iii) 47, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi; (iv) Dabur Farms, Village Bijwasan; (v) Pramod Farms, Village Chadanhola, Delhi; (vi) Flat No. 34, Hailey Road, New Delhi and (vii) a plot in Vrindavan measuring 2000 square yards. These properties were either owned in the name of Sanjay Gupta, L.R. Gupta or various companies, details of which are mentioned in the contempt petition of which Rajiv Gupta and his wife, Alka Gupta, were also the Directors. It is alleged that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, that is, Rajiv Gupta and his wife, Alka Gupta, after having got benefit in terms of the compromise order having been passed by the court in I.A. No. 220/2006 have claimed themselves to be the Directors of the company in terms of the compromise having been arrived at. For this purpose, various letters/correspondence have been exchanged between the respondents and the Registrar of Companies apart from lodging of FIRs, etc. It is alleged that they are in wilful disobedience of the order passed on 9.1.2006 by the court on the basis of the compromise application. ( 4. ) It may be pertinent here to refer to the exact language of the order whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord. ( 5. ) The main contention of Mr. Vashisht, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, after having obtained the benefit in terms of the said compromise order by perfecting their title in respect of two properties at Vasant Vihar and taken substantial amount of money, have wilfully disobeyed the orders of the court by writing letters to the Registrar of Companies, Delhi, copies of which are placed at page Nos. 143, 158, 174, 182, 190 and 197 of the paper book. In these letters Rajiv Gupta, respondent No. 1, has written to the Registrar of Companies that he continues to be the Director of various companies which are claimed to be the owners of properties other than the two properties which have been received by Rajiv Gupta in terms of the compromise decree. Similar letters are purported to have been written by respondent No. 2, Alka Gupta, wife of Rajiv Gupta, copies of which are placed at page Nos. 150 and 160. ( 6. ) It is contended by Mr. Vashisht that notwithstanding the fact that he has already filed an execution petition in respect of this very compromise decree before the concerned court, which is pending adjudication, it does not det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng C.S. (OS) No. 1965/2012 titled Sonakshi Gupta vs. L.R. Gupta (HUF) Ors. in respect of subject properties which are shown in annexures A and B to the suit which is purported to have been compromised between the parties. It has also been disputed by the learned counsel that any undertaking, whatsoever has been given by the respondents and consequently, there is no question of their being any wilful disobedience of the order having been passed by the court. ( 10. ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective sides and have also gone through the record. No doubt, Rajiv Gupta, respondent No. 1, had filed a suit for partition against L.R. Gupta (his father) in the capacity of HUF, his mother and his brother, Sanjay Gupta, which was compromised on 9.1.2006 in terms of which, a compromise decree has been passed. Even if it is assumed that in terms of the compromise, the respondent herein has been able to obtain title to two properties situated in Vasant Vihar and has now tried to retrace his steps so as to wriggle out of the compromise after having obtained an advantage, it does not in my view result in any wilful disobedience of the order passed by the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pending mostly before Bombay High Court which were sought to be given quietus in terms of the compromise between the warring factions, who were members of the same family, out of which all except one, had performed their respective obligations but the one who had tried to resile from her undertaking, that the court was called upon to decide as to whether he can be permitted to do so with impunity so as to flout the entire compromise. It was in such a contingency that the Apex Court observed that merely because a compromise decree is executable in a court of law, does not take away the power of initiating the contempt proceedings against the party, who is trying to resile from his or her undertaking, therefore, the facts of the Rama Narang's case (supra) are totally different from the facts of the present case where there is no undertaking furnished by the respondents. In addition to this, the compromise decree which has been passed is stated to have been already assailed by Sumangli Gupta, the sister of the parties, namely, Rajiv Gupta and Sanjay Gupta. The said application for recall of that order is still pending and therefore, it is just and proper for the petitioner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
