Nirmala Jain & Ors. v. GS Batra & Ors.

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned senior counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the record. The present contempt petition has been filed on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 04.05.2004 which was confirmed on 22.11.2005. The order sheet 2014:DHC:4392 dated 09.02.2011 when the notice came to be issued records the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners learnt about the wilful disobedience of the aforesaid orders for the first time on 23.02.2010. The allegation of the wilful disobedience was that though the respondents were directed to maintain the status quo with regard to the title as well as the possession of the property bearing No.40/72 Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi, but despite this restraint order they have sold the property. The submission on the basis of which the notice came to be issued is factually incorrect. There is no dispute about the fact that the period of limitation of one year is prescribed for taking cognizance of the contempt petitions under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads as under: “20. Limitation for actions for contempt – No court shall initiate any proceedings if contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.”

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his submission has stated that the petitioners learnt about the property in question being transacted in wilful disobedience of the order for the first time on 23.02.2010, is factually incorrect. The averments made by the petitioners themselves in para 35 to 41 belie this submission about the knowledge of the property being transacted and learnt for the first time in the month of August, 2010. The para Nos. 35 to 41 of the petition read as under: “35. The petitioners state that on 17th August, 2007 the Respondent Nos.[4] and 5, in fraudulent collusion and conspiracy with Respondent Nos.6, 7 & 3 herein, sold the property in question i.e. property bearing No.40/72, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi-110026 for an alleged amount of Rs.3.50 crores to Jasbir Singh, the Respondent No.3 herein, and also executed and registered a Sale Certificate in his favour in respect of the said property. A copy of the said Sale Certificate dated 17th August, 2007 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P18.

36. The Petitioners state that the said Sale and execution/registration of the said Sale Certificate, in respect of the said property in favour of Respondent No.3, herein are in clear violation and utter contempt of the aforesaid Orders passed by this Hon’ble Court.

37. The Petitioners state that for the first time, on 29th November, 2007, the said Rajat Mukherjee i.e. Respondent No.6 herein, wrote a letter to the Petitioners herein vaguely disclosing therein that the Respondent No.6 and Respondent No.7 have already sold the property in question in a Public Auction. A copy of the said letter dated 29th November, 2007 addressed by Respondent No.6 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P19.

38. That the said letter of the Respondent No.6 was duly replied on behalf of the petitioners herein vide letter dated 24th December, 2007 rebutting all the allegations and contents of the abovementioned letter sent by Respondent No.6. In the said reply dated 24th December, 2007 it was further asked to the Respondent Nos.[6] and 7 to disclose among others all the material particulars about the said purported public auction, Notice allegedly issued under the Securitization Act, date as to when the said alleged Public Auction took place, at what amount the property in question was sold and to whom the same was sold. A copy of the said Reply dated 24th December, 2007 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-P20.

39. The Respondent Nos.[6] and 7 never sent any reply to the Petitioners’ said letter dated 24th December, 2007.

40. The Petitioners filed an Application before the Ld. Debts Recovery Tribunal–II, Delhi on 11th April, 2008 which was registered as Securitization Application No.22 of 2008. The Petitioners crave leave to refer to the said Securitization Application at the time of hearing, if necessary.

41. That thereafter, on or about 6th May, 2008 during the course of proceedings subsequent to the filing of the Petitioners’ said Securitization Application, on the directions of the Ld. Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi, it was for the first time disclosed on behalf of the Respondent Nos.4,5,[6] and 7 that the property in question was allegedly sold to Jasbir Singh, the father of Respondent No.2 herein.”

3. A perusal of the aforesaid paras in the petition clearly shows that it is the petitioners’ own case that they learnt about the property being transacted for the first time on 17.08.2007. If that was correct, then the contempt petition ought to have been filed latest by 16.08.2008 while it has been filed in the year 2011. Therefore, I find that the present contempt petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. As a matter of fact, the notice has come to be issued to the respondents on the basis of incorrect submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in the court which are belied by the averments made in the petition.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has tried to justify the issuance of notice by urging that the period of limitation is to be reckoned from 23.02.2010 by contending that it becomes a continuous cause of action and accordingly the present contempt petition is within limitation. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Ors; (2001) 7 SCC 549 and Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram and Ors; AIR 1989 SC 2285.

5. I have gone through both these judgments. The said judgments are not applicable to the instant case as not only the facts in the said judgments are distinguishable from the facts in the present case, but also the fact that the property is alleged to have been transacted from different persons from time to time and, therefore, it could not be said to be a continuing cause of action. Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is very clear that once the period of limitation starts running, then no subsequent event can stop the same.

6. For the reasons mentioned above, I feel that the present contempt petition is hopelessly barred by time and accordingly the same is dismissed and the contempt notice is discharged. V.K. SHALI, J SEPTEMBER 03, 2014