Heard finally by consent.

2. As the basic consent terms concerned with the petitioners and the respondents are common, which is the foundation for filing these Contempt Petitions by the petitioners, I am disposing all these contempt petitions by this common order. For the purposes of disposing these contempt petitions, the facts of Contempt Petition No.21/09 are taken.

Most of the events are common except respective payment and the flat numbers.

3. In 1994, Punit City Project, Plot No.27, Sector No.15, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 703, launched by respondents 3 to 5.

4. The petitioners paid the agreed amount to respondents 3 to 5 for purchase of respective Flats in Punit City Building under a registered Agreement for Sale.

5. In 2002, Suit No.36 of 2002 filed by GIC Housing Finance Limited against respondents 3 to 5 for recovery of outstanding dues in respect of mortgage of the property. The mortgage of the property by respondents 3 to 5 to GIC Housing Finance was not within the knowledge of and consented the petitioners.

6. In 2005, respondents 3 to 5 unable to complete project and handed over the project to Punit City Association.

7. On 20.12.2006, Development Agreement between respondents 1 and 2 and Punit City Association and respondents 3 to 5 to take over the redevelopment project.

8. During April, 2007 to July, 2007, the petitioners contested the taking over the project by respondents 1 and 2 from respondents 3 to 5 by taking out Chamber Summons No.643 of 2007.

9. On 22.08.2007, the Court accepted the Undertakings by taking on record the Minutes of Order duly signed by all the parties.

10. On 29.08.2007, the Petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 3 to 5 executed and registered Supplementary Tripartite Agreement for sale of Flats.

11. On 17.08.2008 a Separate Affidavits of Undertaking executed by the respondents.

12. On 11.09.2008, Letter of respondents 1 and 2 of expressing their inability to hand over possession.

13. 30.09.2008 was day of handing over possession of Shop Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by respondents 1 and 2 to the respective petitioners as per the undertaking. The flats could not be handed over. Hence, in February, 2009 the present Contempt Petitions.

14. There is no dispute about the consent terms read with the contents therein. Respondents 1 and 2 are the main parties as alleged by the petitioners who, according to them, not complied with the order/undertaking dated 17.08.2007.

15. Admittedly, as respondents 3 to 5 could not complete the construction, respondents 1 and 2 entered into a Tripartite Agreement for sale in respect of all flats with the respective parties. This also recorded in the consent terms/order dated 22-08-2007 duly signed by all the parties, read with common order dated 22-08-2007 passed in chamber summons no.643/2007 and thereby accepted the statements and undertaking given by the respondents. Suit No.36/2002 was accordingly disposed of.

16. In view of above, admittedly, the parties have entered into the consent terms. The background of the litigation and the default on earlier builder/parties were well within the knowledge. The factual situation, therefore, even otherwise, could not have been changed except that they decided to proceed further to complete the Project/construction.

17. The lacunae and the reason for such delay in completion of the project itself shows that there are various formalities and various stages need to be completed jointly, specially with the cooperation of all.

18. When we talk about the handing over of possession within the prescribed time, it also means subject to Rules and Regulations of the Mumbai Municipal Corporations and as contemplated under Section 45 (1) and (3) of the Maharashtra Regional Town & Planning Act. The requirement is that whether there was intentional and/or deliberate attempt to avoid and/or not to comply with the undertaking given to the Court. Therefore, though undertaking was given and as recorded, that