BDR Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Lalit Modi

Rekha Palli, J

E.A. 796/2020

This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Sections 11 and 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act filed by the Decree Holder (DH) seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the judgment debtor (JD)/Mr.Lalit Modi

for deliberately and intentionally violating the orders of this Court passed on 15.04.2019 and 28.01.2020 in these execution proceedings.

The DH preferred the captioned execution petition seeking enforcement of the award dated 21.11.2016/12.01.2017 whereunder he was held

entitled to specific performance of a sale agreement dated 24.06.2014. In accordance with the agreement, the award directed the JD to execute a

sale deed with respect to the property bearing No.32, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi admeasuring 858 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as

the “subject propertyâ€) in favour of the DH and hand him physical possession thereof by 31.03.2017. Although the JD has challenged the award

by way of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Actâ€) being OMP(Comm.) No.7/2017, which is still

pending adjudication, the award has not been stayed.

Details of injunctions/assurances pertaining to the subject property

Shortly after the award was passed and prior to the institution of this execution petition, the DH had preferred a Section 9 petition OMP (I)

No.3/2017 which was disposed of on 04.09.2017 by restraining the JD from creating any third party rights in the subject property till his Section 34

petition or the present execution petition were disposed of (hereinafter referred to as the “first injunctionâ€​).

However, this was not the only order of injunction operating on the subject property. Sometime before these execution proceedings were instituted,

one Mr. Romi Garg had instituted a suit against the JD, being CS(OS) No.109/2017, seeking specific performance of a sale agreement executed

between them on 14.07.2016 pertaining to the subject property as well. When Mr. Romi Garg learnt of the Award which forms the subject matter of

these enforcement proceedings, he instituted another suit, being CS (OS) No.14/2018, seeking a declaration to the effect that the Agreement to Sell

dated 24.06.2014 and the Award dated 21.11.2016 were void and unenforceable. However, this subsequently preferred suit was dismissed as not

being maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, Mr. Romi Garg appealed against this dismissal by preferring FAO (OS) No.116/2018 wherein, on 18.07.2018,

the JD was restrained from creating any third-party interest in the subject property. This interim direction was made absolute on 16.01.2020

(hereinafter referred to as the “second injunctionâ€​).

An injunction of a similar nature was granted on 15.04.2019 in these execution proceedings when this Court took up E.A. 85/2019 for the second

time, after issuing notice therein on 15.02.2019. By way of this application, the DH had sought appointment of a Receiver to take over possession of

the subject property but in the absence of a reply from the JD, the Court adjourned the matter to 13.08.2019 and restrained the JD from creating any

third-party rights in the subject property (“third injunctionâ€​).

On the next date of hearing, i.e, 28.01.2020, in response to the DHâ€s apprehension that the JD may hand over possession of the subject property

in favour of Mr. Romi Garg if his civil suit were decreed in the meanwhile, a specific assurance was given to this Court by the JD that he was

conscious of the various injunctions operating on the subject property and that he had no intent of violating the same. The Court recorded this

undertaking and adjourned the matter to 21.04.2020. However, the matter could not be listed thereafter since normal functioning of the Court was

suspended owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Facts constituting contempt

On 14.05.2020, the first suit preferred by Mr. Romi Garg, being CS(OS) No.109/2017, came to be decreed in his favour by a Co-ordinate Bench.

Armed with the success of his suit against the JD and being desirous of seeking voluntary satisfaction of the decree from the JD, Mr. Romi Garg

preferred an application on 04.06.2020 in his pending appeal being FAO (OS) 116/2018 seeking modification of the order dated 16.01.2020 (second

injunction) so as to enable the JD to honour the decree dated 14.05.2020. The said modification was vehemently opposed by the DH and therefore,

the Division Bench, on 04.06.2020, directed Mr. Romi Garg to first deposit the balance sale consideration in favour of the DH with the Registrar

General of this Court, before considering his prayer for modification.

It is at this stage that Mr. Romi Garg and the JD entered into a settlement whereunder the JD undertook to execute the sale deed of the property in

favour of Mr. Romi Garg, as per the decree dated 14.05.2020 within 10 days of receiving the balance sale consideration of INR 5,69,00,000/- with

interest @ 8% per annum minus TDS, amounting to INR 7,01,00,000/-. Based on this settlement, Mr.Romi Garg preferred an application in CS (OS)

No.109/2017 on 16.06.2020 seeking modification of the decree dated 14.05.2020 by informing the Court that the JD was willing to execute the sale

deed in his favour provided the balance consideration was paid to his daughter Ms. Sonia Modi.

On 17.06.2020, when the application was listed before the Court, the JD confirmed having received four cheques from Mr. Romi Garg in the name

of his daughter Ms. Sonia Modi, as per the settlement, two of which were for sums of INR 2,00,00,000/- each while the remaining cheques were for

INR 1,50,50,000/- each. The JD further undertook to execute the sale deed in the name of the nominee of Mr. Romi Garg within 10 days and to

handover physical and vacant possession of the suit property to either Mr. Romi Garg or his nominee, as applicable. In view of these statements made

by the JD, the Court allowed Mr. Romi Gargâ€s application by modifying the operative portion of the judgment dated 14.05.2020 and permitting him to

pay the JD a sum of INR 5,69,00,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum minus TDS by effecting the payment in favour of the JDâ€s daughter Ms.

Sonia Modi.

On learning of this modification, the DH filed a suit being CS(OS) 150/2020 for declaration and permanent injunction against the JD and Mr. Romi

Garg praying, inter alia, that the decree dated 14.05.2020 passed in CS(OS) 109/2017, as modified on 17.06.2020, are null and void and unenforceable

against him. The Court, on 26.06.2020, after hearing all parties including the JD and Mr. Romi Garg, directed the JD to vacate the subject property

within two weeks and deposit the keys thereof with the Registrar General of this Court. This direction was assailed by the JD in FAO(OS)34/2020

and the Division Bench modified the same by recording the statements of both the JD and Mr. Romi Garg undertaking not to proceed with execution

of the sale deed with respect to the subject property or creating any third party rights thereon, till the next date of hearing in CS(OS) 150/2020. This

undertaking was subsequently extended by the Court in CS(OS) 150/2020 and is still in operation. It is in these circumstances that the present

application has been filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the JD.

Learned senior counsel for the DH submits that injunction granted on 15.04.2019 (third injunction) specifically restrained the JD from creating any

third-party rights in the subject property. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on 13.08.2019 only on account of non-availability of counsel for JD.

This was followed by the JDâ€s undertaking given on 28.01.2020 assuring that, in tune with the various injunction orders including order dated

15.04.2019 (third injunction), no third-party rights would be created upon the subject property. He submits that notwithstanding this position, the JD, in

an attempt to sidestep judicial orders and hoodwink this Court, not only executed a settlement with Mr. Romi Garg, but also received a huge sum of

INR 7,01,00,000/- from him, through his daughter. This settlement is barefaced proof of the fact that the JD deliberately joined hands with Mr. Romi

Garg, his former business associate, in order to get the decree modified and seek vacation of the injunction order dated 16.01.2020 (second injunction)

operating on the subject property, in order to cause irreparable harm to the DH and render the present enforcement petition infructuous. He submits

that furthermore, the settlement executed by Mr. Romi Garg and the JD was hurried in that it carries a specific stipulation to execute the sale deed

within 10 days of receiving the balance sale consideration, which he has received in the name of his daughter. He submits that the urgency with which

the settlement was arrived upon does not only show the JDâ€s malafide attempt to slyly evade judicial orders and his own undertakings, it also reflects

his complete lack of respect or regard therefor. He, therefore, prays for appropriate action to be taken against the JD to preserve the majesty of this

Court.

On the other hand, Mr. Sachin Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the JD vehemently opposes the contempt proceedings on the

ground of being wholly misconceived and an abuse to the process of law. He submits that it is a matter of fact that the JD has, as on date, not created

any third-party rights in the subject property and in fact the settlement agreement executed between him and Mr. Romi Garg specifically envisaged

execution of the sale deed only pursuant to obtaining vacation of all the stay orders operating on the subject property, including those passed by this

Court. He submits that an agreement which contemplates prospective execution of a sale deed cannot be regarded as “creation of third-party

rights†which was precluded by this Court. It was, ultimately, purely an expression of their intent for the future, without any immediate consequences

on the status of the subject property.

Mr. Chopra further submits that the present application is entirely founded on the apprehensions of the DH stemming from a statement made by

the JD on 17.06.2020, despite the admitted position that neither was any sale deed executed with respect to the subject property nor had Mr. Romi

Garg/his nominee received possession thereof pursuant to the settlement agreement. Thus, when the factual position is that no third-party rights have

been created in respect of the subject property as on date, the JD cannot be deemed as having violated his undertaking given to this Court or having

effected a contemptuous act. He submits that for these reasons, the actions of JD were completely bona fide and cannot be deemed as an attempt to

hoodwink this Court or circumvent judicial orders. He also submits that nevertheless, the settlement agreement was only in furtherance of the

judgment and order of this Court passed on 14.05.2020 read with 17.06.2020 which upheld the rights of Mr. Romi Garg and do not have any effect on

the DH or the proceedings instituted by him since his rights on the subject property continue to be protected under these execution proceeding. In

support of his aforesaid submission, he seeks to place reliance on the decisions in Food Corporation of India Vs. Sukh Deo Prasad 2009 (5) SCC 665

and JCB India Limited Vs. Action Construction Equipment Ltd. 2006 (6) AD (Delhi) 826

Finally, without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Chopra submits that injunction order dated 15.04.2019 (third injunction) was applicable

only till the next date of hearing i.e. 13.08.2019 as is evident from the order passed on the said date, which injunction was admittedly not extended by

any subsequent order. He submits that, therefore, the reliance of the DH upon this order passed on 15.04.2019 or its case that the JDâ€s statement

recorded in the order dated 17.06.2020 undertaking to execute a sale deed in favour of Mr. Romi Garg, amounts to contempt of the order dated

15.04.2019 falls flat. Thus, he prays that this Court dismiss the present contempt application for being meritless and unfounded.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.

From the facts noted hereinabove and the submissions made by the parties, the first thing that is evident is that the JD has not denied that the third

injunction order, i.e., the order passed on 15.04.2019 in the present execution proceedings, specifically restrained him from creating any third party

rights with respect to the subject property. It is also undisputed that the second injunction order, which is the one passed on 04.09.2017 in the Section 9

petition instituted by the DH, also restrained the JD from creating any third party rights in the suit property till disposal of the present execution

petition.The JD also does not dispute that the orders dated 15.04.2019 and 04.09.2017 have not been modified till date. The primary opposition of the

JD to the DHâ€s reliance on the order dated 15.04.2019 is that the order was interim in nature and needed to be extended on the next date, i.e.,

13.08.2019, failing which it was to expire. Since this Court did not extend this order of injunction on 13.08.2019, the JD cannot be deemed as having

contravened the same.

Broadly speaking, barring the opposition to the continuing operation of the third injunction order dated 15.04.2019, the JD appears to be accepting

of the fact that no third party rights could be created with respect to the subject property, owing to the orders passed by this Court. In fact, from the

submissions made before this Court in these contempt proceedings as also those recorded in previous orders of this Court, there is absolutely no

dispute to this position emerging from the record. Reference may be made to the order passed by this Court on 28.01.2020 which reads as under:

“Order dated 28.01.2020 passed in Ex.P.69/2017

Learned senior counsel for the decree holder prays that hearing of the present petition be deferred as the requisite documents are

presently not available on record. He, however, submits that the decree holder apprehends that in case the suit filed by the

Objector/applicant in Execution Application (OS) 169/2018, wherein judgment has already been reserved, is decreed, the judgment debtor

may, in order to scuttle the rights of the decree holder in the present petition, hand over possession of the suit premises to the said applicant

without any execution proceedings being initiated by the said applicant. He, therefore, prays that the judgment debtor be restrained from

handing over possession of the premises in question, even if the applicant’s suit were to be decreed in the meanwhile

In response, learned counsel for the judgment debtor submits that the apprehension of the decree holder is misconceived as the judgment

debtor is conscious of the fact that there are various orders passed by various courts directing the judgment debtor to maintain status quo,

which it does not intend to violate.

In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the judgment debtor, no orders as prayed for are required to be passed at this

stage.

List on 21.04.2020.â€​

As can be seen from a perusal of paragraph 2 of the order hereinabove, the JD on 28.01.2020, expressed its continued cognisance of the fact that

it was bound by the orders of this Court that it could not create any third party rights in the subject property. In fact, by virtue of this order, another

undertaking had been recorded on behalf of the JD to abide by the spirit of the orders of injunction given by this Court, as also by other Courts. Since

this assurance was given in the light of the DHâ€s apprehension that the JD might create third party rights in favour of Mr. Romi Garg, the

undertaking served to assuage the same. Thus, I find that the JDâ€s contention of limited operation of the third injunction order dated 15.04.2019 does

not hold ground in the light of the overall admitted position that there were existing injunction orders operating with respect to the subject property, by

way of orders passed in OMP (I) 3/2017 as also in FAO (OS) 116/2018.

Now, in defence of the settlement agreement executed between Mr. Romi Garg and him, the JD has contended that the same specified, in no

uncertain terms, that the sale deed would be executed in favour of Mr. Garg or his nominee, only once the orders of injunction passed by this Court

were vacated. Since this line of defence relies heavily on the language of the settlement executed between the parties, the least that was expected

from the JD was that it would place the document on record before this Court. Notwithstanding this position, the JD has chosen to refrain from doing

so and this Court has no reason to believe the bald assertions of the JD in this regard which stand woefully unsubstantiated. In fact, this settlement

agreement was not even a part of the modification application filed by Mr. Romi Garg on 16.06.2020 in CS(OS)109/2017 which primarily averred that

since the JD was agreeable to execute the sale deed in his favour, this Court may permit them to do so immediately. Moreover even in the order dated

17.06.2020, which is admittedly a consent order and the basis on which the decree dated 14.05.2020 was modified to accommodate the settlement

agreement, there is no mention of any mutual intention to withhold execution of the sale deed until all injunction orders operating on the subject

property are vacated by this Court. For this purpose, it may be apposite to note the order passed on 17.06.2020 in CS(OS) No.109/2017 which reads

as under:

“The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. I.A.4558/2020 (modification/directions in terms of decree dated 14th

May, 2020)

This suit was decreed by this Court on 14th May, 2020 in favour of the plaintiff/ applicant and against the defendant in the following

terms:

“23.1. In view of the discussion aforesaid the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing a decree of

specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14th July, 2016 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff would

deposit a sum of Rs.5,69,00,000/- along with Interest @ 8% per annum from 27th February, 2017 till the date of deposit which will be made

in this Court within eight weeks, whereafter the defendant would execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property In favour of the plaintiff

within four weeks thereafter and in case the defendant falls to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within four weeks of the

deposit of the amount, an officer of this court would execute the sale deed In favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is also directed to hand

over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within four weeks of the execution of the sale deed in favour of the

plaintiff.

A cost of Rs.50,000/- is allowed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.â€​

Parties i.e. the plaintiff and defendant have now entered into a settlement to the extent that the defendant now prays that the balance

amount required to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant i.e. Rs.5,69,00,000/- along with the interest @ 8% p.a. from 27th February,

2017 till the deposit, be made in the name of the daughter of the defendant Ms. Sonia Modi in the form of the cheques, whereafter Lalit

Modi the defendant herein would execute sale deed in favour of the nominee of the plaintiff i.e. Ganesh Info Services Pvt. Ltd.

The plaintiff and defendant No.1 have both joined the present proceedings through video conferencing and affirm the facts stated in the

application.

The plaintiff has handed-over four cheques bearing Nos. 721530, 721531, 721532 and 721533 dated 16th June, 2020; first two cheques

for a sum of Rs.2 crores each and third and fourth cheque for a sum of Rs.1,50,50,000/- each, all drawn on Corporation Bank, Hauz Khas

Branch, New Delhi.

Mr. Lalit Modi states that he has received the four cheques and the sale deed will be executed within 10 days.

Application is accordingly disposed of modifying the operative portion of the judgment dated 14th May, 2020 permitting the plaintiff to

hand-over a sum of Rs.5,69,00,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum minus TDS, instead of Mr. Lalit Modi in the name of Ms. Sonia Modi

for which four cheques have been handed-over and sale deed in terms of agreement to sell be executed in the name of nominee of the

plaintiff i.e. Ganesh Info Services Pvt. Ltd., when the physical and vacant possession of the suit property will also be handed-over to the

plaintiff or his nominee by the defendant.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.â€​

Thus, even the aforesaid order passed in CS(OS) No.109/2017 does not refer to any mutual understanding between Mr. Romi Garg and the JD

undertaking to abstain from their respective obligations under the settlement unless and until the injunction orders were vacated by the Court. At the

same time, the order leaves no manner of doubt that the JD had specifically and in unambiguous terms, undertaken to execute the sale deed and hand

over vacant possession of the subject premises in favour of Mr. Romi Garg or his nominee within a period of 10 days in exchange for receiving a sum

of INR 7,01,00,000/- from him by way of cheques.

The order dated 17.06.2020 passed in CS(OS) No.109/2017 also shows that the JD received those cheques in the name of his daughter - Ms.

Sonia Modi, which cheques have admittedly been encashed. Correspondingly, the JD had begun taking other steps to ensure that he keeps up his side

of the bargain under the settlement agreement, in collusion with Mr. Romi Garg. To that end, Mr. Romi Garg withdrew his stay application filed in

FAO (OS) No.116/2018 which resulted in vacation of the stay order (second injunction) directing the parties to main status quo with respect to the

subject property since 18.07.2018. Considering the fact that this Court had already been called on to exercise its jurisdiction as an executing court and

was concerned with the status of the subject property, neither the JD nor Mr. Romi Garg felt it necessary to inform this Court of their purported

settlement agreement. Furthermore, despite the fact that he was engaged in a litigation battle pertaining to this very property, even the DH was not

informed of this settlement by either the JD, rather it is only by virtue of being a party to the aforesaid FAO that he learnt about the same. The DH

responded to this development by immediately filing a suit to assail the settlement, being CS(OS) No.150/2020, and protect his rights under the award

passed in his favour on 21.11.2016/12.01.2017. Finally, the Court dealing with CS(OS) No.150/2020, on 26.06.2020, after noticing the fact that the JD

had entered into agreements to sell with the two parties and had obtained huge amounts in lieu thereof from each of them, directed the JD to deposit

the keys of the subject property with the Registrar General of this Court in order to prevent it from creating any further charges on the property.

Although this order was assailed by the JD in FAO(OS) No 34/2020, the learned Division Bench modified the same on 06.07.2020 only after

recording the statement of undertaking given by the JD and Mr. Romi Garg that they will not execute the sale deed till further orders are passed by

the Court dealing with CS(OS)150/2020. Be that as it may, the fact remains that even though the JD has not yet successfully executed the sale deed

in favour of Mr. Romi Garg/his nominee as per his explicit commitment in the settlement, he has appropriated an enormous sum of INR 7,01,00,000/-

from Mr. Romi Garg by promising to immediately execute the sale deed in lieu thereof. The intention of the JD, reflected from his voluntary

acceptance of the sale consideration notwithstanding the injunction orders operating on the subject property, is plainly mala fide and an attempt to

overreach the orders of this Court.

Were it not for the intervention of the DH, who preferred a suit, and the Court, which passed the orders on 26.06.2020 and 06.07.2020, the JD

would have been successful in its endeavour to get the sale deed executed in favour of Mr. Romi Garg which would have not only been in blatant

violation of the various injunction orders operating against him, but would have also seriously prejudiced the rights of the DH. Thus, I do not find any

merit in the JDâ€s plea that since no third-party rights have been created, the JD cannot be said to have violated the orders passed by this Court. The

facts noted hereinabove show that the JD took active steps to ensure immediate execution of the sale deed and handing over of possession of the

subject property to Mr. Romi Garg/his nominee, which failed only because the DH filed CS(OS) No.150/2020 on time.

The JDâ€s actions are further compounded by the previously mentioned failure on his part to adduce any documentary evidence in support of his

contention that notwithstanding the settlement he executed with Mr. Romi Garg, he had no intention to discharge his obligations under the settlement

without seeking vacation of the injunction orders or the permission of this Court. The overall conduct of the JD clearly shows that Mr. Romi Garg and

he had entered into the settlement in June 2020 with the intent of hastily and sneakily transferring the title and possession of the subject property to

Mr. Garg by securing an enormous sale consideration of INR 7,01,00,000/- in favour of the JD, which consideration stands admittedly accepted in the

name of the JDâ€s daughter. Insofar as the JDâ€s decision to accept the sale consideration from Mr Romi Garg in the name of his daughter stands,

that is another red flag for which no explanation whatsoever has been forthcoming from the JD.

The JD has adopted an additional line of argument in support of its contention that the settlement agreement is bonafide since it is in furtherance of

the judgment and order of this Court passed on 14.05.2020 read with the order dated 17.06.2020. In the first place, although the judgment dated

14.05.2020 did decree the suit in the favour of Mr. Romi Garg, the same was passed without making any reference to the rights of the DH on the

same property. To remedy this aspect, when Mr. Romi Garg moved an application in FAO (OS) 116/2018 before the Division Bench praying for a

direction to modify the second injunction order so that he could obtain the subject property, the DH vehemently resisted the same and successfully got

the judgment dated 14.05.2020 modified on 04.06.2020 to protect his own rights to the property. Thus, the judgment dated 14.05.2020 cannot be read

in isolation and must necessarily be read with the order of the Division Bench passed on 04.06.2020, which together protect the DHâ€s right upon the

subject property by directing Mr. Romi Garg to deposit the balance sale consideration in favour of the DH before the Registrar General of this Court.

Equally important, the order dated 17.06.2020 was passed without making any reference to the DHâ€s possible rights to the subject property and

seemed to record only details of the settlement between Mr. Romi Garg and the JD. Again, when the DH came to know of the order dated

17.06.2020 as also the settlement agreement, he preferred CS(OS) 150 of 2020 whereunder this Court again protected the interests of the DH on

26.06.2020 by directing the JD to deposit the keys of the subject property with the Registrar General of this Court in order to prevent it from creating

any further charges on the property. It is a matter of record that the order for deposit of keys was subsequently modified by a Division Bench on

06.07.2020, but that modification was pursuant to receipt of another undertaking by the JD that he will not execute the sale deed with respect to the

subject property. Hence, even the order dated 17.06.2020 cannot be read in isolation and ought to be read along with the orders dated 26.06.2020

passed in CS(OS) 150 of 2020 and 06.07.2020 passed in FAO(OS) No 34/2020. Therefore, the JDâ€s attempt to adopt a restricted reading of the

orders, without accounting for the subsequent modifications thereto, in order to paint his actions in a favorable and legally sound light is unsustainable.

To put it simply, at every instance when the Court was brought up to speed with the pending legal status of the subject property, it would issue

directions to protect the rights of the DH and that was the spirit of the orders issued by the Court. Ultimately, instead of obeying the direction of this

Court to maintain status quo with respect to the property as he was obligated to do, the JD chose to employ a subterfuge by entering into a farcical

settlement agreement with Mr. Romi Garg all with the intent to skirt judicial orders. Not to mention, by failing to honour the assurance he gave to this

Court, the JD has played a serious fraud on the Court and has obstructed the course of justice. These actions amount to breach of an undertaking

given to the Court by the JD/Contemnor, all with the selfish aim of fraudulently reaping a benefit for himself by misleading this Court.

I have also considered the decisions relied upon by the JD in Food Corporation of India (supra) and JCB India Limited (supra) but find that they

are distinguishable on facts and merely reiterate legal principles which only further the DHâ€s case. Neither of these decisions had a clear and

unequivocal order of injunction which was valid in law or an express undertaking recorded on behalf of the person accused of contempt. Yet, in these

very decisions, the Court went on to state the parameters of a charge of contempt, in regard whereof reference may be made to the following

paragraph in JCB India Limited (supra):

“12. The gravamen of the charge of contempt is wilful disobedience of an order of the court or intentional violation of an undertaking

given to the court. Civil Contempt is defined in S.2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act as meaning wilful disobedience to a judgment, decree,

direction, order, writ or other process of a Court, or wilful breach of undertaking given to a Court. In case there is any such breach in a

particular case, Section 12 of the Act may be attracted, wherein punishment is provided for contempt of Court. Section 13 of the Contempt

of Courts Act after the non-obstante clause mandates that no Court shall impose a sentence under the Act unless it is satisfied that the

contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of the justice. Whether the

Court should take action for contempt or not must depend on the circumstances of each case and discretion is to be exercised by the Court

bearing in mind all the circumstances of a particular case. It is, however, the settled position that wilful conduct is the primary and basic

ingredient of the offence of contempt and is the sine qua non for bringing home the imputation of guilt. Contempt proceedings cannot be

permitted to be used as a legal thumb-screw to serve an ulterior purpose. The jurisdiction should not be used for vindictiveness, malafides

or a desire to harass the opponent. The order or undertaking flouted must be one with clear-cut contours for the petitioner to be able to

allege that the interdict of the Court has been violated or an undertaking given to the Court has been flouted.â€​

In the present case, neither the injunction orders nor the undertaking of the JD given to the Court on 28.01.2020 are clothed in any ambiguity at all

with regard to their effect. Faced with the operation of such an explicit, repetitive and continuing injunction on the subject property, there is no merit to

the JDâ€s denial of being in wilful and intentional defiance of court-ordered injunctions and recorded undertakings. Apart from the JDâ€s bald and

unsubstantiated averments of bonafide in his defense, which are completely devoid of merit, this Court has taken note of his conduct which involved

clandestinely colluding with Mr. Romi Garg to agree on a purported settlement agreement, accepting cheques from Mr. Romi Garg in the name of his

daughter and failing to fully disclose the factum of existing judicial orders of injunctions and undertakings operating on the subject property, while

appearing before different Benches of this Court in different proceedings. In these circumstances, it stands to reason that the JD has intentionally

indulged in contemptuous actions by wilfully disobeying restraint orders, which were undisputedly within his knowledge, and violating his own

undertakings made before this Court. Any further indulgence shown to a litigant, such as him, who has engaged in this sort of conduct without fearing

any punitive consequences would be a mockery of the judicial process and cannot be permitted. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the JD

is guilty of civil contempt.

Accordingly, I hold the JD guilty of civil contempt and grant him an opportunity to show cause within 3 weeks on the aspect of quantum of

sentence, which shall be considered on 29.01.2021 when the matter is directed to be listed next.