Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1856
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Scindia Potteries & Servics Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ankur Jain – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 661 of 2019 & CM APPL. 33657 of 2019
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Mr. Manav Gupta, Mr. Sahil Garg, Ms. Devanshi Rangi, Ms. Gauri Rishi, Ms. Garima Sehgal, Ms. Srishti Juneja and Ms. Anushka, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Viraj Datar, Senior Advocate Ms. Sonal Sarda, Advocate with Mr. Ankur Jain, for the Respondent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of compliance with judicial orders and the consequences of disobedience, as well as the court's power to enforce compliance and punish for contempt.
Headnote:
Contempt - Willful Breach of Undertakings - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - [CS(OS) No. 1311/2001, Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC] - The judgment discusses the willful breach of undertakings given by the Respondent no.1, Mr. Ankur Jain, in RFA No. 857/2017. It highlights the legal proceedings, undertakings, and orders of the appellate court, and the subsequent obstruction in the recovery of possession of the suit premises. The court emphasizes the importance of compliance with judicial orders and the consequences of disobedience.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner filed a suit for possession and mesne profit against Dr. J.K Jain and Jain Studios Ltd. A decree and judgment were passed in favor of the Petitioner. The original defendants failed to comply with the orders, leading to legal proceedings and obstruction in the recovery of possession. The Respondent no.1, as the legal heir, gave undertakings to comply with the orders but failed to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Respondent no.1 guilty of contempt for willful breach of undertakings, deliberate obstruction in the recovery of possession, and disregard for judicial orders. The court rejected the apology and sentenced the Respondent to three months' imprisonment and a fine.
Issues: The issues revolved around the willful breach of undertakings, obstruction in the recovery of possession, and the consequences of disobedience of judicial orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with judicial orders, the consequences of disobedience, and the need to uphold the rule of law.
Final Decision: The court sentenced the Respondent no.1 to three months' imprisonment and a fine for contempt of court.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. By the order dated 02.03.2020 of this Court, the Respondent no.1, Mr. Ankur Jain, has been held guilty of contempt for willful breach of the undertakings given by him on 18.07.2018 and 01.08.2018 to this Court in RFA No. 857/2017.
2. The Respondent no.1, contemnor was served with a notice for his personal appearance before the Court for awarding punishment.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Respondent no.1, is the legal heir of the original defendant Dr. J.K. Jain in CS(OS) No. 1311/2001. He states that Dr. J.K. Jain was made a Director of the Petitioner company in 1980 and he was provided the property at Scindia Villa, Scindia Potteries Compound, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi (`the suit premises') for his residence.
3.1. He states that facts evidencing the wilful breach of the undertakings by Respondent no. 1 has been set out in the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by this Court. He states that even after his conviction, the Respondent no.1 had exhibited complete disregard for the legal process and has obstructed the recovery of possession of the suit premises.
3.2. He states that Respondent no. 1 acted to the prejudice of the Petitioner and with a view to obstruct the execution of the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017, wrote a letter dated 15.02.2019 to the Interim Resolution Professional (`IRP') M/S Noida Software Technology Private Ltd.(`NSTPL') provoking him to take the possession of the suit premises so as to frustrate the warrants of possession issued by the executing court on 01.02.2019. The IRP in Dena Bank v. NSTPL, acted upon the letter of the Respondent no. 1 and took possession of the suit premises from Respondent no. 1 and his family on 16.02.2019.
3.3. He states that the Petitioner herein was thus, compelled to approach the National Company Law Tribunal (`NCLT') for seeking possession of the suit premises from the IRP. He states that the NCLT vide order dated 18.07.2022 held that the suit premises do not belong to NSTPL and directed Resolutional Professional (`RP') to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the Petitioner. He states that the Respondent no. 1 opposed the Petitioner's plea for handover of possession of the suit premises before the NCLT in the aforesaid proceedings.
3.4. He further referred to the objections filed by a company, Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. before the executing court objecting to the issuance of warrants of possession. He states that the said objections were filed at the instance of Respondent no.1's mother Mrs. Ragini Jain. He relies upon a resolution dated 19.10.2019 signed by Mrs. Ragini Jain in this regard.
3.5. He states that though the conditional interim stay was vacated in 2018 and in the due course the Petitioner should have received the possession in 2018 in compliance with the judgement and decree dated 17.07.2017, however as is evident from the record, the Petitioner was able to recover possession of the suit premises on 22.07.2022, after multiple legal proceedings. The suit premises was handed over to the Petitioner by the RP in the matter of insolvency of Jain Studios Pvt. Ltd. by way of a handover letter on 22.07.2022.
3.6. He states that the suit for possession was instituted on 01.06.2001 and decreed on 17.07.2017. The possession was recovered in 2022. He states that these glaring facts evidence that the Respondent no.1 and his family members abused the legal process to deny the Petitioner, the owner of the suit premises, its right of possession.
3.7. He states that the obstruction in recovery of possession of the suit premises by Respondent no.1 evidences his disregard for the judicial process and interference in the administration of justice and therefore prays that maximum punishment should be awarded to the Respondent no. 1.
4. In reply, learned senior counsel for Respondent no.1 states that Respondent no.1 has filed an affidavit dated 01.12.2022 to set out facts which enlist the circumstances which led
