9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents have been allotting the constructed flats in favour of third parties thereby seeking to defeat their rights. On 1.8.1991 a Bench of this Court comprising S. Ranganathan, F. Fathima Beevi and N.D. Ojha, JJ. passed the following order in I.A. No. 2 of 1991 after hearing the respondents. Counsel accepts notice. In the meantime, till this Special Leave Petition is disposed of, responde'nts 1 2 should not make any further allotment of any other flats in the building in dispute, with effect from today. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the allotment of the flat, originally allotted to him, to some other person violates an oral order of a Division Bench of the High Court. It will be open to the petitioner to move the High Court for appropriate relief in this regard if so advised. 3. This Contempt Petition is filed complaining that the respondents have allotted certain flats in favour of third parties in violation of the said order. 4. So far as the petitioners in this Contempt Petition (Major Genl. B.M. Bhattacharjee and Smt. S. Laha) are concerned, they claim to be interested in the flats on the 8th floor of the said building. At any rate the compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook the stand that the delivery of possession on 17.8.1991 and the execution of the registered sale-deed in March, 1992 do not constitute violation of the Order dated 1.8.1991. His submission is that this Court merely restrained the allotment of flats. Allotment, according to the learned Counsel, means entering into the agreement of sale. Inasmuch as the agreement of sale with respect to the said two flats on the 8th floor was entered into long prior to the said Order of this Court, it is submitted, there is no disobedience to the order of this Court. It is submitted that delivery of possession and the registration of the sale-deed (s) is in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement of sale and not in pursuance of any agreement of sale entered into on or after 1.8.1991. The counsel further submitted that even on the date when the aforesaid order was passed on 1.8.1991, the second respondent had represented to this Court that agreement of sale in respect of all the flats have already been entered into. In this view, it is submitted, there has been no misrepresentation or suppression of relevant facts on their part. 8. We may mention that when we indicated our disagreement with the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance in the context, difficult as it is to verify its truth and correctness. This court could not be presumed to have interdicted such an uncertain thing. It must be remembered that even according to the respondents they had represented to this Court, at the time the said order was passed, that they have already entered into agreement of sale in respect of the flats and yet this Court chose to pass the said order. In the circumstances, it cannot mean anything else than delivery of possession of flats - and their sale. It may also mean an agreement of sale but its meaning is certainly not confined to an agreement of sale. To say so, as do the respondent, is to rob the order of any meaning or content. 11. Mr. Dutta, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the second respondent understood the allotment in a particular manner and that the said misunderstanding, if any, was bonafide. We are not prepared to agree. Firstly, there could not have been any doubt in the mind of Respondent with respect to the meaning of the order. Secondly, assuming that he had any doubt regarding its meaning, the least he could have done was to ask for a clarification of the said Order. He c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ganathan J. is a member. About this time, an application seems to have been presented to the Registrar that this case should be transferred to some other Bench. However, the matters came up before us again some time last week when counsel for the respondents agreed that the matters may be listed this week. The matters were listed yesterday. A person claiming to be the son of the second respondent made a request that the matter should not be heard by this Bench. We rejected this request and made it clear to him that he should make arrangements for the conduct of the case. The matters did not reach yesterday and when the matters came up today, a letter dated 6.8.92 written by the second respondent to his counsel revoking the counsel's vakalatnama has been placed before us. But the respondent No. 2 did not appear before us nor did he make other arrangements for the conduct of the case. Sri Chatterjee, his advocate on record, appeared but expressed his inability to conduct the case since his client had withdrawn the vakalatnama. We understand that in one of the matters the respondents are represented by another counsel whose vakalatnama is also seen to have been revoked but she ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , any order of this Hon'ble Court has been violated, the same has been so done through mistake, inadvertence and by a misunderstanding of the meaning and purport of that order and surely not intentionally and for which I unconditionally apologise for self and on behalf of the Respondent firm and I beg to be excused. 16. Then in paragraphs' 4 to 12 he has without waiving the aforesaid and fully relying thereupon repeated the contentions which were urged by his counsel before us and which we have dealt with hereinbefore. He stated that he understood this Court's order dated 1.8.1991 as prohibiting only the entering into of agreements of sale and not delivery of possession or registration of the sale deeds. All the said contentions we have dealt with hereinbefore. They need not be reiterated here. 17. So far as the apology contained in para 3 of the second respondent's further affidavit is concerned, it may firstly be mentioned that it is not really an unconditional apology though it purports to say so. While tendering unconditional apology in para 3, the second respondent has tried to defend his action in the subsequent paragraphs. Secondly, even if we constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
