Uma Pati Sood v. Gaurav Kapoor & Anr

3. Mr. Manohar Lal, learned counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the Respondents have frustrated the entire Collaboration Agreement and the settlement agreement which was entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondents inasmuch as Respondent No.2, who is the Managing Director of Respondent No.1 company, was an active participant in the sale deed for selling half of the share of the property to various individuals. He submits that the Respondents have taken all steps to frustrate the consent order which stipulated that the construction would be completed within two years by persuading Rakesh Katyal to file a Civil Suit, being CS(OS) 116/2020 for partition of the property. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the fact that M/s Jolly Brothers Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. has sold their share (1/4th of the entire property) to Mr. Rakesh Katyal has been suppressed by the Respondents in the proceedings before the learned ADJ. He submits that the Respondents never intended to fulfil the agreement entered into between them and the Petitioner.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted.

5. The power to punish for contempt is a special power and needs to be exercised with care and caution, and it should be used sparingly by the Courts. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and whether the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious or not. In Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352, the Supreme Court has observed as under:

between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes levelled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction “that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute” in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts."

6. A reading of the order dated 07.03.2019 shows that the Respondent No.1 company was to complete the construction within two years from the date of that order. Order dated 07.03.2019 further stipulated that in case of failure in completing the construction, Respondent No.1 herein was to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month to the Petitioner herein.

7. Mr. Rama Pati Sood has sold his half undivided share in the property to three other individuals. The sale of his share of the property by Mr. Rama Pati Sood has been upheld by this Court while passing the preliminary decree dated 23.03.2021. It cannot be said that the Respondents have violated any order passed by the Court or have violated any undertaking given to the Court because order dated 07.03.2019, which was a consent order, stipulates that in case of delay in construction, the Respondent No.1 would be liable to pay Rs.50,000/- per month to the Petitioner herein.

8. In absence of violation of any order or undertaking by the Respondents herein, this Court observes that there has been no wilful disobedience on the part of the Respondents of the Order dated 07.03.2019, passed by the learned ADJ, Dwarka Courts, in CS No.1053/2018 and, therefore, no contempt is made out against them.

9. Accordingly, the instant contempt petition is dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. MAY 05, 2022 Rahul