Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.11.2022 Review Petition No. 277/2022 in Cont.Cas(C) 4/2021 and C.M.
Appl. No. 45514/2022, C.M. Appl. No. 44639/2022
ANAND KOHLI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sidharth Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ankit Chadha, Advocate for the non-applicants.
Through: Ms.Preeti Singh, Mr.Sunklan Porwal, Ms. Saumya Dwivedi and
Ms.Kumkum Mandhaya, Advs. for the Review Petitioner with Review
Petitioner-in-person.
Review Petition No. 277/2022 and CM APPL. No. 46885/2022 (stay)
JUDGMENT
1. The instant review petition seeks review of order dated 07.10.2022 whereby the review petitioner/respondent was held guilty of having committed contempt of court under Section 2(b) read with Section 11 and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The order dated 07.10.2022 reads as under:- “1. Vide order dated 23.03.2022, the contempt petition had been disposed of by this court with the following directions:
2. Thereafter, the post-dated cheques submitted by the respondent to the petitioner bounced. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that till date, apart from the first cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/-, not a single cheque that was handed over by the respondent to the petitioner, has been honoured.
3. Vide order dated 03.06.2022, it was observed by this court as under: "3. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that only the first cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/which was handed over in the Court was honoured. He states that the second cheques for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was dishonoured. He states that the Respondent made a payment of Rs.1.[5] Lakhs instead of Rs.2,00,000/-. He states that thereafter, the third cheque, which was for the month of May, 2022, was also dishonoured and no payment has been received. He states that the Respondent/Contemnor has the resources to ensure that the cheques are honoured. He states that this fact is demonstrated by the messages received from the Respondent offering to purchase the property. He states that this Court vide Order dated 23.03.2022 had given liberty to the Petitioner to file an application for revival of the Contempt Petition in ease of non-payment of the amount.
4. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the instant contempt petition is restored to its original number. "
4. Learned counsel for the respondent concedes that after the aforesaid order dated 03.06.2022 came to be passed, the requisite payments were not made, and according to her, only an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been paid by the respondent to the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner denies having received any payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- and submits that no payment whatsoever has been paid by the respondent to the petitioner after 03.06.2022.
5. After the aforesaid order dated 03.06.2022 was passed, the matter was taken up for consideration thereafter on a few occasions and was adjourned from time to time to enable the respondent to comply with the directions contained in the judgement/order dated 23.03.2022. However, the respondent has not evinced any intent to comply with the directions contained in the judgement/order dated 23.03.2022 by paying the requisite amount to the petitioner. The post dated cheques handed over by the respondent to the petitioner, as recorded in the order dated 23.03.2022, have admittedly been dishonoured. Paragraph 8 of the said order dated 23.03.2022 clearly states that even if a single cheque was dishonoured for want of money, the respondent would be liable for aggravated contempt.
6. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding the respondent guilty of having committed contempt of court under Section 2(b) read with Section 11 and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
7. List for orders on sentencing on 14.10.2022.”
2. The review petition has been filed on the basis that in the Civil Suit i.e. CS 332/2019 pending between the parties, an order dated 16.09.2022, was passed, which reads as follows: “CS 332/19 ANAND KOHLI AND ANOTHER Vs.
RASHTRIYA SAMASYA 16.09.2022 Present: Sh. Narender Lodiwal, Ld. Proxy counsel for counsel for the plaintiff. None for the defendant. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the matter is to be withdrawn and the plaintiff would appear by 2.00 pm for statement. Heard. Be awaited To be recalled at 2.00 PM. (Vijeta Singh Rawat) Additional District Judge-01 PHC/New Delhi/16.09.2022 At 2.00 PM Present: Sh. Wasim Ashraf, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs alongwith plaintiff no.l. None for defendant. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have already received the possession of the suit property on 30.10.2021 and have forgone their other rights. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the suit. Heard. Separate statement of plaintiff no.1 and of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs on behalf of plaintiff no.2 recorded to this effect. Accordingly, present suit is dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to records. (Vijeta Singh Rawat) Additional District Judge-01 PHC/New Delhi/16.09.2022”
3. It is submitted by the review petitioner that since the non-applicants “have foregone their other rights”, and sought permission to withdraw the suit, the very premise of holding the review petitioner guilty of having committed contempt of court, does not survive, and for this reason, the aforesaid order dated 07.10.2022 is required to be reviewed.
4. The contention of the review petitioner is completely devoid of merit. The same is evident from a perusal of orders dated 23.03.2022 and 03.06.2022, passed in these proceedings. The order dated 23.03.2022 reads as under:-
5. The order dated 03.06.2022 reads as under:- “CM APPL. 27809/2022
1. This application under Section 151 CPC has been filed seeking revival of the instant contempt petition.
2. This Court vide order dated 23.03.2022 had disposed of the instant contempt petition. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: "2. Today the Contemnor is present in the Court. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Contemnor that the Contemnor has handed-over a cheque of ₹1,00,000/ dated 23.03.2022 along with 11 post-dated cheques of ₹2,00,000/- each to the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
8. It is made clear that even if a single cheque, handed-over by the Contemnor to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, gets dishonoured for want of money, the Petitioner will be at liberty to revive the contempt petition and the Contemnor would be liable for aggravated contempt which would entail punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
9. With these observations the petition is disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any. "
3. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that only the first cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was handed over in the Court was honoured. He states that the second cheques for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was dishonoured. He states that the Respondent made a payment of Rs.1.[5] Lakhs instead of Rs.2,00,000/-. He states that thereafter, the third cheque, which was for the month of May, 2022, was also dishonoured and no payment has been received. He states that the Respondent/Contemnor has the resources to ensure that the cheques are honoured. He states that this fact is demonstrated by the messages received from the Respondent offering to purchase the property. He states that this Court vide Order dated 23.03.2022 had given liberty to the Petitioner to file an application for revival of the Contempt Petition in ease of nonpayment of the amount.
4. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the instant contempt petition is restored to its original number.
5. On taking steps, let notice be issued to the Respondent/Contemnor through all modes, including Whatsapp and email, Dasti in addition.
6. The application is disposed of.
7. List the petition on 02.09.2022.
8. The Respondent/Contemnor is directed to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated.”
6. It is evident from a perusal of the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2022, that the review petitioner clearly admitted her financial liability towards the non-applicant, and to discharge the same, the review petitioner handed over certain post dated cheques to the non-applicant. Moreover, a categorical direction was given that even if a single cheque issued by the review petitioner was dishonoured for want of money, the non-applicant herein would be at liberty to revive the contempt petition and the review petitioner would be liable for “aggravated contempt” which would entail punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Admittedly, the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2022 has acquired finality; no review or appeal is stated to have been filed against the aforesaid order. Further, upon nonencashment/dishonour of some of the cheques that were handed over by the review petitioner, the contempt petition was restored to its original number vide order dated 03.06.2022 and the review petitioner was directed to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against her.
7. The directions contained in the order dated 23.03.2022 are not nullified or extinguished by the order dated 16.09.2022 in CS 332/2019, as urged by learned counsel for the review petitioner. In fact, the liability of the review petitioner to the non-applicant was crystallized in terms of the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2022 and there was no necessity thereafter for the non-applicant to pursue CS 332/2019. As mentioned herein above, the order dated 23.03.2022 has acquired finality; the said order records the factum of post dated cheques being handed over by the review petitioner to the non-applicant and goes on to record that even if a single cheque gets dishonoured, the same would amount to aggravated contempt on the part of the review petitioner.
8. It has also been clarified by learned senior counsel appearing for the non-applicant, that what was foregone by the non-applicant at the time of withdrawal of CS 332/2019, was the mesne profits, that had been claimed from the review petitioner in the said civil suit and not the arrears of rent towards which the post dated cheques had been given by the review petitioner.
9. Another contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the review petitioner during the course of arguments, although not specifically pleaded in the review petition. She submits that responsibility can no longer be fastened on the review petitioner in view of the averments made by the non-applicant in CM(M) APPL. 45514/2022, in which it has been averred that, in fact, it was the husband of the review petitioner i.e. Sh. Shailesh Singh who was actually operating the business in the premises taken on lease from the non-applicant, and it was only for convenience that he had appointed the review petitioner as the Manager and Authorised Representative of the lessee.
10. The aforesaid contention is also completely misconceived, in view of the order dated 23.03.2022 (supra), vide which there is unequivocal acceptance by the review petitioner of her liability, for discharge of which post dated cheques were handed over by the review petitioner to the nonapplicant.
11. Whether or not Sh. Shailesh Singh, husband of the review petitioner has aided and abetted the contempt on the part of the review petitioner, is an aspect which is required to be independently gone into; however, the same does not in any manner affect or extinguish the liability of the review petitioner herein.
12. In the circumstances, no ground is made out to review the order dated 07.10.2022 and the review petition is accordingly dismissed. CM APPL. NO. 46885/2022 also stands dismissed.
SACHIN DATTA, J NOVEMBER 10, 2022