Fraudulently obtained consent terms are void; courts can evaluate past orders for legitimacy in contempt proceedings.

ORDER

1. The Applicant has filed the present Contempt Petition seeking the following reliefs:

" (a) The rule be issued;

(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the record and proceeding pertaining to the Appeal (L) No. 396 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner in this Hon'ble Court after perusing the said proceeding be pleased to take the action against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and punish the said Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in accordance with law.

(c) That the pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and their servants, agents, representatives, heirs or any persons claiming through them from selling, transferring, assigning, creating third party or part the possession of the flat bearing Flat No. 51, Rosie Apartment, 9th North Avenue Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai and also the flat bearing Flat No. B/705 situated in Jay Sheetal CHS Ltd., Bhayander (E), Dist. Thane.

(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to comply the order dated 23.10.2015 and consent terms dated 23.10.2015.

(e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to permit the Petitioner and his family members to reside in the flat bearing No. 51, Rosy Apartment, 9th Avenue Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai along with the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3."

2. The cause title shows Respondent No. 1 as two partnership firms. The Applicant/Petitioner is Respondent No. 2 and 3's son.

BACKGROUND OF FACTS LEADING TO FILING OF THE PRESENT CONTEMPT PETITION:

3. This is an extremely unfortunate situation where the parties viz. the son on the one hand, and the parents on the other, have been litigating for over 22 years. Greed, acrimony and deceit are writ large on the conduct of the Applicant. To putthings in context, it will be useful to set out a brief background of the circumstances leading to filing of the present Contempt Petition.

4. In or around the year 1999, disputes arose between the parties inter alia relating to family properties and shares of the respective parties in Respondent No. 1. Ever since, the Parties have filed various proceedings against each other including diverse criminal proceedings.

5. In the year 2000, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed S.C. Suit No. 926 of 2000 before the City Civil Court inter alia against the Applicant. The City Civil Court referred disputes in respect of the shares of the parties in Respondent No. 1 (partnership firm) and partition of a flat situated at Flat No. 51, Rosie Apartment, 9 North Avenue, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 0054 ("Santacruz Flat") to arbitration.

6. The Applicant filed a claim before the arbitrator seeking Rs. 2.5 crores.

7. On 22nd October, 2007 an arbitration award ("Arbitration Award") came to be passed wherein it was ordered as follows :

"a) The report dated 18th June 2007 of the Commissioner Shri A. D. Dave is accepted.

b) The summary of certificate of the amount payable to the claimant attached to the Commissioner's Report is approved.

c) The Respondents shall pay to the Claimant [Applicant] the sum of Rs. 37,93,828 (Rs. Thirty Seven Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Eight hundred Twenty Eight only) on the claimant vacating the flat being No.51, Rosey Apartments, Santacruz (West), Mumbai also with his family and handing over peaceful possession to the Respondents.

d) The Claimant shall