The corporate veil can be lifted when it is being used as a cloak to disobey a court order.

( 1 ) LEASE hold rights in plot No. 16, Nehru Place, New Delhimeasuring 445. 93 sq. mts. were auctioned by the Delhi Development Authority (for short D. D. A.) at a Public auction. The bid of Smt. Kanwaljit Kaur Bhasinand Smt. Kamleen Bhasin, respondents, for Rs. 63,ll,000. 00, was accepted bythe DDA by its letter dated 8/11/1979. The said lease hold rights wereacquired to construct a multi-storeyed building on the said plot in accordancewith the terms and conditions, plans and other particulars stipulated by thedda.

( 2 ) BY an agreement dated 3/03/1980 the respondents agreed to sellto M/s. Jyoti Limited, the petitioner the third and fourth floors of the proposedmulti-storeyed building with an area measuring 9000 sq. ft. at Rs. 340. 00 persquare ft. or for a total sum of Rs. 30,60,000. 00. A sum of Rs. 2 lakh was to bepaid to the respondents on execution of the said agreement. A sum of Rs. 1lakh -was to be paid on furnishing proof to the petitioner of having taken possession of the plot by the respondents from the DDA. Remaining amount ofrs. 27,60,000. 00 was to be paid to the respondents on completion of the buildingand at the time of delivery of possession of the said floors. Clause 5 of theagreement provided that time shall always be the essence of the contract. Itfurther provided "any payment made by JYOTI within 30 days of its becomingdue for payment to the BUILDERS shall be deemed to have been made intime. "

( 3 ) THE sum of Rs. 2 lakhs which under the agreement was to be paid onthe execution of the agreement was admittedly not paid on 3/03/1980when the agreement was executed. By letter dated March 15, 1980 the agreement of sale was cancelled by the respondents alleging breach of the term ofthe contract by the petitioner relating to the payment of said sum of Rs. 2 lakhswhich had not even been paid by that date. On 22/03/1980 the petitionersent a letter to the respondents with abank draft dated 13/03/1980 forrupees two lakhs. It was stated that at the time of the signing of the agreementthe respondents had been intimated that the bank draft for this amount was tobe received from Baroda and will be paid to the respondents when received. Itwas further stated that the very fact that the respondents signed the agreementindicated that they did not insist on making this payment at the time of execution of the agreement and in any event under clause 5 of the agreement thepayment could be made within 30 days of its becoming due.

( 4 ) ON 12/05/1980 the petitioner brought a suit against the respondentsseeking a decree for declaration that the purported cancellation of the agreement dated 3/03/1980 by the said respondents was wrongful and not binding on the petitioner and a decree for specific performance of the agreementdated 3/03/1980 and in the alternative, in case specific performance wasnot decreed, an enquiry regarding the damages suffered by the petitioner and adecree for the said amount.

( 5 ) ALONG with the suit the petitioner filed an application (I. A. 1803/80)under Order 39 rule 1 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure seekingtemporary injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with or disposingthe third and fourth floors of the premises of the multi-storeyed building to beconstructed on plot No. 16, Nehru Place, New Delhi or any portion thereof inany manner. On 13/05/1980 D. R. Khanna, J. made the following order onthis application :-

"notice of the application to the defendants for 22/05/1980. Inthe meanwhile the defendants are restrained from transferring in anymanner the 3rd and 4th floor of the multi-storeyed building to beset up on plot No. 16 Nehru Place, New Delhi. Notice dasti . "

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the parties, this order was confirmed and extended tillthe decision of the suit by order dated 8/10/1980. Appeal against thesaid order was dismissed as withdrawn by a Division Bench of this court on 15/04/1981.

( 7 ) ON 8/02/1983 the petitioner brought the present applications (la 630