Suresh Kumar Kakkar & Anr. v. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited & Anr.

1. The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: CCP(O) 73/2022 “a) Initiate Proceedings for Contempt of Court against all the Directors of the Respondent Companies; b) Punish all the Directors of the Respondent Companies and convict them to Civil Prison in accordance to law; c) Pass such further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Briefly stated, disputes between the parties have arisen out of a Collaboration Agreement dated 14.10.2010 and the Plot Buyer Agreements dated 23.12.2010. It is alleged that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were required to hand over Plots No. C -1018 & C-1019 at Sector 67, Gurugram, Haryana ad-measuring 1124.20 Sq Yards to the petitioners under the said agreements. The said Plots having not been handed over, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 9 [O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 14/2022] of the A&C Act, inter alia, seeking the following relief: “Pass an Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents, their Agents, Representatives and/or any other person/ entity claiming through the Respondents thereby restraining them from creating any Third Party Rights in respect of the Right, Title and/ or Possession of Plots Number No. C-1018 and C-1019 Esencia, Sector 67, Gurugram, Haryana admeasuring 1124.20 Sq. Yards each, being the allocation of the Petitioners under the Collaboration Agreement (affixed along with Stamp Paper dated 14.10.2010) and the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 23.12.2010:”

3. It is alleged that on the first date of hearing on 14.01.2022 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 14/2022, learned senior counsel for the respondents made a statement on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2, and recorded as follows in the order dated 14.01.2022:- “Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Dubey, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents undertakes, on instructions, to maintain status quo regarding title and possession in respect of the properties forming subject matter of the four Collaboration Agreements dated 14th October 2020 executed between the petitioner and the respondent.”

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner during the course of these proceedings that in contravention of the undertaking given by the respondents, as recorded in the order dated 14.01.2022, certain third-party rights in respect of Plots were created by the respondents in favour of M/s RSD Finance Ltd. It was further alleged that the present occupant of the Plot No. C-1018 is attempting to raise construction on the said plots. It is strenuously contended that if any third-party rights had been created by the respondents concerning these plots, such information should have been disclosed by the respondents at the time of the issuance of the order dated 14.01.2022. Moreover, it is asserted that the respondents have committed perjury by misleading this Court regarding the creation of third-party rights in the said Plots.

5. It was during the course of hearing on 15.12.2022 that it transpired that the aforesaid Plots were sold by the respondents to M/s RSD Finance Ltd prior to passing of the order dated 14.01.2022. M/s RSD Finance Ltd had further sold the said plots to certain third parties prior to passing of the order dated 14.01.2022. Vide order dated 15.12.2022, this Court expressed the prima facie view that the respondents were guilty of concealment of material facts from this Court, and have acted in a manner so as to circumvent/frustrate the order/s passed by this Court. It was observed as under: “10….It is also evident that on 14.01.2022 when the undertaking was given on behalf of the respondent nos. l& 2, to the effect that status quo would be maintained with regard to title and possession of the concerned plots i.e C-1018 and C-1019 Esencia, Sector-67, Gurugram, Haryana, it was not disclosed to the Court that the aforesaid transactions had already taken place

11. Prime facie, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are guilty of concealment of material facts from this Court. On 14.01.2022, when the matter came up for hearing, an impression was created by respondent nos. 1 & 2 that the said respondents were in Control and possession of the land/plots in question and an undertaking was given that status quo as regards title and possession in respect of the same would be maintained. Evidently, the statement which was made on behalf of the respondent nos. l& 2 that status quo would be maintained in respect to plots in question, was false to their own knowledge since the said respondents had already alienated the plots. …. CCP (O) 73/2022

4. In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, prima facie, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 have not only concealed material facts and misled this Court, they have also acted in a manner so as to circumvent/frustrate the order/s passed by this Court. It is, accordingly, directed that directors of the respondent nos.[1] & 2 as on 14.01.2022 shall remain personally present in Court on the next date of hearing. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 is directed to file a list of all such Directors within a period of two weeks from today. Let court notice be issued to the said directors for the next date of hearing.”

6. Similar prima facie observations were also made in order dated 23.01.2023.

7. Having heard the respective counsel for the parties at some length, it appears that although an erroneous statement was made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 on 14.01.2022, no change in the status of the concerned land/plots has been brought about by the respondent nos.[1] & 2 after the order date 14.01.2022 was passed. It transpires that third party right had already been created even prior thereto.

8. No doubt, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 & 2 should have been cautious while making the statement as recorded in the order dated 14.01.2022. However, since (i) respondent nos.[1] & 2 have not dealt with the land/plots in question in aftermath of the order dated 14.01.2022, or sought to take any other advantage pursuant to its statement and (ii) considering that third party rights had already been created prior to 14.01.2022; this Court, after much deliberation, is inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the respondent nos. 1 & 2 that the statement made by learned senior counsel for the said respondents was more on account of lack of adequate diligence on the part of the learned counsel rather than any real intention to mislead the Court or to give a false undertaking to the Court. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no(s). 1 and 2 has also tendered an unconditional apology for the lapse/lack of diligence on the part of the counsel.

9. This Court also notes that for a considerable period after the order dated 23.01.2023 was passed, the parties were making attempts to arrive at an amicable resolution of the inter se disputes, however, the same could not fructify. Vide a separate judgment passed in ARB. P. 721-722 of 2022 the parties have been referred to arbitration. Necessarily, the respective rights and obligations of the parties arising under the agreement/s in question and also the consequences flowing from their conduct shall also be gone into by the learned Sole Arbitrator while adjudicating the disputes between the parties. In the aforesaid conspectus, this Court is not inclined to proceed further with the present contempt proceedings.

10. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J OCTOBER 29, 2024