JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---This petition was placed for hearing at the stage of show cause notice to the respondent, calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why action under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against him. The backdrop in which the present petition has been filed is that, the respondent is the administrator General and official Trustee (sole trustee) of Shree Venkatesh Balaji Temple property situate at Banganga Road, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai. The petitioner company was intending to purchase the Trust property for which trustee and the petitioner executed Memorandum of Understanding. However, as the property belonged to the public trust, approval from the High Court under the provisions of Official Trustees Act, 1913 was required to be obtained. For that purpose, Trust Petition No. 5 of 1995 was instituted in this Court. Besides, the said trust petition, one writ petition was filed by the third party questioning the proposed sale in favour of the petitioners on various grounds. It is not relevant to advert to those proceedings in detail. Suffice it to mention that the said trust petition and the writ petition eventually came to be disposed of by order dated 8-8-1997 by the Division Bench of this Court. The order records that the petition was disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. It is not in dispute that the respondent, however, later on moved a formal praecipe for speaking to minutes stating that the recording of fact by this Court in order dated 8-8-1997 that the parties have entered into terms of settlement was inaccurate. Pursuant to the said praecipe, it is not in dispute that, the Court recalled that part of the order-meaning thereby the trust petition as well as writ petition was disposed of by the Court as per the Minutes of order which in essence is order passed by the Court and not as per the settlement terms. According to the petitioner, following are the relevant clauses under which the respondent was under an obligation to take necessary steps so as to conclude the transaction in question, which read thus :

"(i) There will not be a sale of Temple, Chawl or Temple land. The Temple land and the properties shall continue to vest in the respondent. The petitioner shall be entitled to avail the privileges of F.S.I. available in respect of the property including in the form of T.D.R., in accordance with Development Control Regulation 67;

(ii) The respondent shall make available to the petitioner F.S.I. potential for consideration of Rs. 1,36,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Six Lakhs only) in the form of T.D.R., Certificates;

(iii) The petitioner shall pay sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) (in addition to Rs. 1,36,00,000/-) for repairing and maintaining the temple. The responsibility of repairing and maintaining was with the respondent;

(iv) The balance consideration of Rs. 1,26,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Six Lakhs only) (Rs. 10,00,000/- Rupees Ten Lakhs only) already having been paid shall be paid against the transfer and endorsement of T.D.R., Certificates in favour of the petitioner by the respondent;

(v) The respondent shall grant a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioners Director for the purpose of negotiating and obtaining consent from the tenants of the existing chawl and structure for availing developable F.S.I. in the form of T.D.R. All costs, charges and expenses for obtaining T.D.R., including in respect of the tenanted chawl shall be borne by the petitioner. All the co-operations would be rendered by the respondent for obtaining necessary sanctions from Bombay Municipal Corporation and other authorities;"

2. Whereas, it is alleged that, the respondent instead of taking steps in furtherance of the said Minutes of the order took stand by letter dated 19-9-1997, that only 2294 sq. ft. of the F.S.I. was sold to the petitioner; which, according to the petitioners, was directly contrary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document