Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judge: Reva Khetrapal, J.
Mrs. Shobha Shrestha – Appellants
Vs.
Mr. Jay Randolph Vass and Anr. – Respondent
CCP(O) 86/2004 in CS(OS) 471/1996
Decided On: 31.03.2009
CONTEMPT OF COURT - [KEYWORD] - Violation of interim injunction order - Agreement to sell property during subsistence of injunction - Unconditional apology tendered by contemnor - Acceptance of apology and discharge of contempt notice.
Fact of the Case:
During the subsistence of an interim injunction order passed by the court restraining the parties from alienating or entering into any agreement for sale of the property in suit with any third party, the respondent No. 2, who was the Power of Attorney holder of the respondent No. 1, entered into an agreement to sell the property with a third party. The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, filed a contempt petition against the respondent No. 2 for intentionally and willfully disregarding and disobeying the injunction order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disobedience of the injunction order by the respondent No. 2 was willful, intentional and deliberate. The court also held that the apology tendered by the respondent No. 2 was full of remorse and there was no real reason why the court should reject the same as being otherwise.
Issues: Whether the respondent No. 2 had willfully and intentionally violated the interim injunction order passed by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent No. 2 had willfully and intentionally violated the interim injunction order passed by the court. The court also held that the apology tendered by the respondent No. 2 was full of remorse and there was no real reason why the court should reject the same as being otherwise.
Final Decision: The court accepted the apology tendered by the respondent No. 2 and discharged the contempt notice issued to her.
Reva Khetrapal, J.
1. By way of this application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner seeks initiation of Contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents No. 1 and 2 for intentionally and willfully disregarding and disobeying the order dated 23rd February, 1996 passed by this Court in IA No. 1856/1996 in CS(OS) 471/1996.
.2. The backdrop in which the present contempt petition came to be filed is a long drawn out legal battle between the parties on various fronts. The petitioner had filed Suit No. 471/1996 against Mrs. Melanie Vass Simon, Mrs. Dorie Vass Guidon, Mrs. Alexandra Vass Slusher and Mr. Jay Randolph Vass, etc. for specific performance and other relief in respect of the Agreement of Sale dated 24.02.1990. The said Agreement of Sale pertained to Plot No. 34, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, admeasuring 1960 sq. yards approximately, with a residential house and an outhouse constructed thereon. The share of the co-owners of the aforesaid property was stated to be as under:
.(a) Mrs. Sanjivani Prabhakar Kelavkar -25%
.(b) Ms. Lilla M Shrinagesh -25%
.(c) Mrs. Melanie Vass Simon -31.25%
.(d) Mrs. Alexandra Vass Slusher -6.25%
.(e) Mrs. Dorie Vass Guidon -6.25%
.(f) Mr. Jay Randolph Vass -6.25%
3. The petitioner had entered into different agreements with the co-owners for the purchase of the property in question, viz., Agreement for Sale dated 13.08.1988 with Mr. Prabhakar Kelavkar, Agreement for Sale dated 22.08.1988 with Mrs. Leela M. Shrinagesh and Agreement for Sale dated 24.02.1990 with Mrs. Melanie Vass Simon, Mrs. Dorie Vass Guidon, Mrs. Alexandra Vass Slusher and Mr. Jay Randolph Vass. The last agreement dated 24.02.1990 was entered into and executed on behalf of the sellers by the CCP(O) 86/2004 in CS(OS) 471/1996 Page No. 2 of 36 General Power of Attorney holder Mr. A.P. Venugopalan.
4. The plaintiffs case in Suit No. 471/1996 was that the defendants had not taken steps to complete the conveyance of the said property in favour of the plaintiff (the petitioner herein), compelling her to file Suit No. 471/1996 and two other suits, i.e., Suit No. 472/1996 and 473/1996 for specific performance of the Agreements for Sale dated 13.08.1988, 22.08.1988 and 24.02.1990.
5. On filing of the aforesaid suits, this Court vide its order dated 23.02.1996 in IA No. 1856/1996 in Suit No. 471/1996 granted injunction against the defendants No. 1 to 4 from alienating or entering into any Agreement for Sale of property in Suit with any third party. The order dated 23.02.1996, being the genesis of the present contempt petition, is extracted hereinbelow:
23.2.1996
Present: Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar with Ms. Poonam Kumari for the plaintiff.
S. 471/96
Counsel for the plaintiff submits that summons in this case be issued to defendant No. 1 to 4 only against whom specific performance of agreement to sell is sought. The other defendants have been impleaded as proforma defendants because they also have undivided share. A separate suit has also been instituted against them for specific performance.
Issue summons to defendant Nos. 1 to 4 both by ordinary process as
well as registered A.D. cover and through attorney for 22.07.1996.
IA No. 1856/96
Notice for 22.7.1996.
Having regard to the fact that agreement to sell has been executed in favour of the plaintiff and substantial part of the consideration has been paid and the conduct of the defendants in not executing the sale deed, the plaintiffs apprehension regarding possible alienation of property appears to be justified.
In this view of the matter, let the defendants 1 to 4 be restrained from
alienating or entering into any agreement for the sale of the property in
Suit with any third party.
Provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be complied with.
Dasti. FEBRUARY 23, 1996
Sd/
JUDGE
6. The petitioner in the first week of June, 200
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
