9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that abuse of the legal process will not be tolerated. The present contempt petition and all the pending applications, if any, are disposed of. - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA For the Appellant : Mr. Manav Gupta, Mr. Sahil Garg, Ms. Devanshi Rangi and Ms. Anushka, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Viraj Datar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Sonal Sarda, Advocate with Mr. Ankur Jain JUDGMENT MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J: 1. By the order dated 02.03.2020 of this Court, the Respondent no.1, Mr. Ankur Jain, has been held guilty of contempt for willful breach of the undertakings given by him on 18.07.2018 and 01.08.2018 to this Court in RFA No. 857/2017. 2. The Respondent no.1, contemnor was served with a notice for his personal appearance before the Court for awarding punishment. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Respondent no.1, is the legal heir of the original defendant Dr. J.K. Jain in CS(OS) No. 1311/2001. He states that Dr. J.K. Jain was made a Director of the Petitioner company in 1980 and he was provided the property at Scindia Villa, Scindia Potteries Compound, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi ( the suit premises ) for his residence. 3.1 He states that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes that the suit for possession was instituted on 01.06.2001 and decreed on 17.07.2017. The possession was recovered in 2022. He states that these glaring facts evidence that the Respondent no.1 and his family members abused the legal process to deny the Petitioner, the owner of the suit premises, its right of possession. 3.7 He states that the obstruction in recovery of possession of the suit premises by Respondent no.1 evidences his disregard for the judicial process and interference in the administration of justice and therefore prays that maximum punishment should be awarded to the Respondent no. 1. 4. In reply, learned senior counsel for Respondent no.1 states that Respondent no.1 has filed an affidavit dated 01.12.2022 to set out facts which enlist the circumstances which led to his inability to comply with the undertakings dated 18.07.2018 and 01.08.2018 given to this Court. 4.1 He states that the suit premises are not the residence of Respondent no.1. He states that the suit premises were the registered office of Jain Studios Ltd., which was original defendant no. 2 in the civil suit of possession filed by the Petitioner in 2001. 4.2 He states that the bona fide of Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest at 9% per annum. iii. First Appeal being RFA No. 857/2017 was filed by the original defendants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017. iv. In the application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the said appeal a conditional stay was granted vide order dated 23.11.2017. The appellate court directed the original defendants to deposit 50% of the decretal amount with up-to-date interest within 8 weeks, i.e., 18.01.2018, and subject to the further condition of depositing the monthly use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 7.5 lakhs per month, till the disposal of the appeal. v. The original defendants failed to deposit the money in terms of the said order dated 23.11.2017 and therefore the decree and judgment dated 17.07.2017 became executable. vi. Accordingly, on 01.02.2018, the Petitioner herein filed an execution petition before the trial court. vii. To avoid the execution, the original defendants filed an application bearing CM No. 4177/2018 in the said appeal seeking extension of time to comply with the order dated 23.11.2017. viii. The appellate court relying upon the averments made in the said application, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow. (Emphasis supplied) xv. Respondent no.1 was unable to comply with the 2nd undertaking given on 01.08.2018 and therefore moved CM No. 47168/2018, yet again seeking extension of time. The appellate court vide order dated 14.12.2018 declined to extend the time. xvi. Consequently, since there was no stay on the operation of the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017, the said decree became executable as directed by the appellate court in its order 18.07.2018. The Respondent no. 1 and the other appellants were liable to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Petitioner immediately thereafter on 14.12.2018. xvii. However, Respondent no.1, his mother and sister who were acting on behalf of all the appellants i.e., original defendant willfully failed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Petitioner. xviii. Instead, it has come on record that the Petitioner herein was able to recover the possession of the suit premises only after four long years on 22.07.2022; and after several legal battles in these four years. 6. The Petitioner has set out in detail in its affidavit dated 15.10.2022 the details of the multiple legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he following prayers: a) Direct the Resolution Professional to furnish a copy of the complete Resolution Plan to the Applicant as well as a copy of the application filed seeking approval of the Resolution Plan; b) Direct the Resolution Professional to hand over the vacant physical possession of the premises (situated at Scindia Villa, Sarojini Nagar, Ring Road, New Delhi 110023 possession of which were taken by him pursuant to being appointed the Interim Resolution Professional) to the Applicant or in the alternate to the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Munish Markan, A.D.J., Patiala House Courts, New Delhi where the proceedings being Ex. No. 80 of 2018 titled Scindia Potteries Services Private Limited Vs. Dr. J.K. Jain Anr. Is pending, forthwith and in any event the moment the moratorium ceases io have effect; (Emphasis supplied) 7. The Predecessor Bench of this Court on 02.03.2020 refrained from proceeding in contempt against Mrs. Ragini Jain and Ms. Madhurika Jain giving them benefit of doubt. However, a perusal of the list of proceedings initiated by the family members of the Respondent no.1 including the objections filed by Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. to obstruct the recovery of posses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces that the Respondent no. 1 has scant regard for the undertakings given to the appellate court and the orders of the said court. In a civil society which favours the rule of law, no person can be allowed to elect to not comply with the orders of the Court. In this regard, this Court would like to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and Others, (2014) 8 SCC 470, wherein it was held as follows: 185.2. Disobedience of orders of a court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. Judicial orders are bound to be obeyed at all costs. Howsoever grave the effect may be, is no answer for non-compliance with a judicial order. Judicial orders cannot be permitted to be circumvented. In exercise of the contempt jurisdiction, courts have the power to enforce compliance with judicial orders and also, the power to punish for contempt. (For details, refer to paras 15-21) (Emphasis supplied) 12. Even though in the affidavit dated 01.12.2022 filed by the Respondent no.1 contemnor had tendered apology to this Court for the non-compliance of the undertakings given to this Court, this Court does not find any sincerity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
