9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners and respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 (in Special Leave Petitions) are real brothers and heirs and legal representatives of one Dhulabhai Patel. It was the case of the petitioners that in 1961, one Chandulal Muljibhai Parikh and Dhulabhai Patel (father of petitioners and respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5) purchased land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 459/2, 464, 465, 466/1 and 466/2 admeasuring 6 acres and 9 gunthas of village Atladara, Taluka and District Baroda in the State of Gujarat from one Parvatibai Ingle by a registered sale deed. According to the petitioners, the amount of consideration was paid from the funds of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of Dhulbhai Patel, but name of respondent No. 1 Chandrakant Dhulabhai Patel was shown as the purchaser of the property being the eldest son of deceased Dhulabhai Patel along with Chandulal Muljibhai Parikh. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were minors at that time. Respondent No. 1, Chandrakant Dhulabhai Patel was also studying in a college and was having no source of income whatsoever. The entire amount was paid by deceased Dhulabhai. According to the petitioners, several documents revealed that the property was managed by HUF of Dhulabhai Patel. In Octo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendants, but did not grant injunction as prayed by the petitioners- plaintiffs. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing Appeal from Order No. 140 of 2003 and the High Court of Gujarat vide its order dated May 2, 2003 directed the trial Court to dispose of the Application (Exh. 5) on merits within 15 days from the re-opening of the courts after summer vacation. 5. The trial Court thereafter heard the matter and dismissed the Application by refusing interim injunction. The petitioners once again preferred an appeal against the said decision in the High Court being Appeal From Order No. 241 of 2003. Along with Memorandum of Appeal, the petitioners filed Civil Application No. 5083 of 2003 for interim injunction. In paragraph 8 of the Civil Application, the petitioners prayed for interim relief. The High Court by an order dated July 23, 2003, granted ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of paragraph 8(A). 6. The said paragraph read as under; 8. The applicants, therefore, pray that: (A) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the aforesaid Appeal from Order, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an injunction restraining opponents Nos. 1 to 3 herein, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 7659-7660 of 2004. On April 26, 2004, this Court issued notice and continued interim order passed by the High Court which was, as noted earlier, in terms of prayer para 8(A). The order, dated April 26, 2004 passed by this Court read as under; The interim order already granted by the High Court will continue subject to further orders of this Court. 12. Notices were served on the respondents who appeared. Affidavits and further affidavits were thereafter filed and Special Leave Petitions were disposed of by this Court on January 10, 2005. 13. The said order read thus; The dispute in these special leave petitions pertains to the construction on certain properties which are claimed to be the joint family properties. By the impugned interim order, the High Court has permitted construction to be made on the suit properties. We have considered the reasoning of the High Court. While not affirming the correctness of the prima facie opinion expressed therein, we are of the view that the interest of the parties will be adequately protected if a conditional order is passed. The special leave petitions, ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioners, in this connection, referred to agreements to sell as well as sale deeds and acceptance of part payment or full payment of consideration during the intervening period between July 23, 2003 when the High Court granted interim relief in terms of para 8(A) and also orders dated April 26, 2004 and the final order dated January 10, 2005 by this Court. It was urged that though the suit was pending before the trial Court and the matter was sub-judice, in agreements to sell as also in sale deeds, an express and unequivocal statement was made by the contemners that their title to the property is `clear' and `marketable'. It was ordered by the Court on January 10, 2005 that if any third party right would be created, it "shall be done after notice to the petitioners". No such notice, however, was given to the petitioners. It was only after the properties were sold that a 'pursis' was filed in the trial Court stating therein that certain properties were sold by the defendants. Thus, there was clear breach of orders of this Court and the contemners are liable to be punished for violating the interim orders. 18. The learned Counsel for the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecial Leave Petitions. But taking note of the pendency of the main matter (suit), the Court did not totally vacate interim relief but modified it by imposing certain conditions. The question before us is whether the contemners had violated both the orders or any of the two orders and whether such violation or disobedience was wilful or intentional as alleged by the petitioners. If so, what punishment should be imposed on the contemners and what should be the final order in these contempt petitions. 21. Before proceeding with the consideration of rival contentions, it may be stated for the completion of record that Special Civil Suit No. 605 of 2002 instituted by the petitioners herein (plaintiffs) was decreed by the IXth Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara on May 23, 2006 and it was declared that plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 each has 3/16 share in the suit property and defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 each has 1/48 share in the said property. Preliminary decree was ordered to be drawn up accordingly. It was also stated that the defendants against whom the decree is passed have challenged the decree by filing First Appeal in the High Court and the matter is su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss contempt petitions against him. 25. A counter-affidavit is also filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 controverting the averments and denying the allegations of the petitioners in the Contempt Petitions. It was stated that during the operation of interim order dated April 26, 2004, they had neither executed any sale deed nor created third party interest in the suit property. The cheques said to have been accepted by them during interim orders represented the amount paid towards consideration of the apartment booked prior to the issuance of interim orders. 26. Regarding the allegation that the title of the suit property was described as 'clear and marketable', it was stated that as per the order of the Court, what was required to be mentioned was the pendency of the proceedings. In all the sale deeds, executed by the respondents, specific recital was made that the transaction was subject to pendency of civil suit and final decision therein. 27. Regarding the third allegation of not giving notice to the petitioners, it was stated that no 'prior' notice was required as per the order of this Court. It was stated; a. in order to protec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;B' property abuts 30 metres wide road while part 'A' property abuts 40 meters wide T.P. Road. Thus, part 'A' property (suit property) was having better location and higher commercial value. 30. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 admitted that Madhuben Rohit and Jasodaben Thakor deposited Rs. two lacs on October 15, 2004 for booking one of the shops which was to be constructed on Part 'B' property. But after the disposal of Special Leave Petitions on January 10, 2005, the injunction came to an end regarding part 'A' property. Under the circumstances, request of Madhuben and Jasodaben for allotment of shop in part 'A' property instead of part 'B' property was favourably considered and accepted. Cases of Hemlataben Shah, Rashmikaben and Ranjit Gulati were identical. Sale-deed in favour of Dr. Tolaram Popat was executed on January 24, 2005, i.e. after final disposal of SLP and there was no interim injunction at that time. 31. It was, therefore, submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not created any right in favour of third party during the operation of interim order and there was no question of taking proceedings under the Contempt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea has been put forward without there being anything on record. Though it was stated that initially, Madhuben, Hemlataben, Rashmikaben and Ranjit Gulati were given shops in part 'B' property, no such agreements/deeds have been placed on record. It was then stated that after interim relief was vacated and request was made by them to allot them shops in part 'A' property, no evidence/material has been adduced by the contemners. A stereo-type affidavits have been filed sworn on one and the same day, July 29, 2006 after contempt notice was served upon the respondents. Even the sale-deeds do not recite part 'A' or 'B' of the property or the fact that earlier the allottee was granted shop in part 'B' property but after the disposal of the Special Leave Petitions, request was made by the purchaser to convert the allotment from part 'B' property to part 'A' property. The so-called defence, therefore, is apparently to avoid consequences of contempt proceedings. 37. Moreover, the defence does not appear to be probable. Normally, no reasonable and prudent man/woman who purchases immovable property with a 'clear' title would r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, Ex.5. Though the High Court granted such injunction, but it was vacated at the time of dismissal of Appeal from Order. But all the parties to the suit were aware that the main matter (suit) was pending and rights of contesting parties in the suit-property were yet to be decided. In the circumstances, 'injunction' or 'no injunction', the title of the defendants was 'under challenge'. It was 'cloudy' and unless and until the suit is decided, it cannot be said that they had 'clear and marketable title'. Though the legal position is clear and beyond controversy, we find that an express, unambiguous and unequivocal statement is made by the contemners in all sale deeds that their title to the property is 'clear and marketable'. It was also stated that they were independent owners, possessors and occupiers of the property and there was no right, interest, part share, claim of anybody else therein. 41. It was, no doubt, submitted by the learned Counsel for the contemners that it was specifically and clearly stated that a suit was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara and it was also clarified that the documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh for the contempt of itself". Clause (c) of Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enacts that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may, commit the person guilty of disobedience of an order of interim injunction to civil prison and direct his property be attached and sold. Rule 2A of Order XXXIX as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976) reads thus: 2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction--(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. 50. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Ors. 2004CriLJ1239 , this Court had an occasion to consider the concept of 'wilful disobedience' of an order of the Court. It was stated that 'wilful' means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. According to the Court, it signifies the act done with evil intent or with a bad motive for the purpose. It was observed that the act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 51. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR1999SC3215 , it was held that for holding a person to have committed contempt, it must be shown that there was wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. But it was indicated that even negligence and carelessness may amount to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of us (C.K. Thakker, J.) observed that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. Upholding of such argument would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. 55. In All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh and Ors. 2007CriLJ2147 , this Court considered several cases and observed that wilful and deliberate act of violation of interim order passed by a competent Court would amount to contempt of Court. 56. A reference in this connection may also be made to a decision of this Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarawala v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. [1997]2SCR152 . In that case, the plaintiff-landlord filed a suit against the defendant-tenant in the City Civil Court for pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iously erode the dignity and the authority of the courts. (emphasis supplied) 59. From the above decisions, it is clear that punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. 60. Now, in the instant case, both the orders passed by this Court on April 26, 2004 and January 10, 2005, were explicitly clear. The first order totally prohibited/restrained the respondents/contemners from creating any interest whatsoever in the suit property. As held by us, in spite of the said order, interest had been created by the contemners in the suit property. But even otherwise there is intentional disobedience and wilful breach of the subsequent order dated January 10, 2005 inasmuch as transactions had been entered into without issuing notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly at a later stage, the apology should be tendered unreservedly and unconditionally, before the Judge has indicated the trend of his mind. Unless that is done, not only is the tendered apology robbed of all grace but it ceases to be an apology It ceases to be the full, frank and manly confession of a wrong done, which it is intended to be. 64. It is well-settled that an apology is neither a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness [Vide M.Y. Shareaf v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur; 1955CriLJ133 : M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana 1991CriLJ2648 ]. 65. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad through the Amicus Curiae v. Ashok Khot and Anr. 2006CriLJ2773 , a three Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the question in the light of an 'apology' as a weapon defence by the contemner with a prayer to drop the proceedings. The Court took note of the following observations of this Court in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. 1984CriLJ993 : We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry- and forget' school o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
