The court emphasized that contempt proceedings should only be initiated when there is a clear case of wilful disobedience of a court's order and that the respondents followed due process to extend credit facilities to protect the estate and expand the business of the companies LWIPL and LIPL.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

CCP(O) 11/2022

1. The instant contempt petition under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5, Priya Jain, who has been referred to as the "petitioner" for the sake of convenience of adjudication of the instant petition, against the alleged contemnors seeking the following reliefs:

"a) punish respondents/contemnors for willful disobedience of the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Test. Cas.54 of 2014 by putting them in civil imprisonment and attaching their properties; and

b) direct the Contemnors to purge the contempt by restoring status quo ante in respect of the charge on the subject properties, i.e., F-89, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi, and 229, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase III, New Delhi; and/or

c) pass any such other or further orders' as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;"

BACKGROUND

2. The captioned Testamentary Case has been filed by one Sanjay Kalra, seeking probate of purported Will dated 11th December 2004 of Devender Kumar Jain who passed away on 18th March 2014. The petitioner herein, Priya Jain, daughter and a Legal Representative of the deceased, has filed the instant petition against the other Legal Representatives of the deceased, being his wife, Contemnor No. 1, his other daughter, Contemnor No. 2-Pooja Jain Gupta, as well as the officers of the alleged Contemnor Bank. Apart from the instant Testamentary Case, the parties, i.e., the LRs of the deceased, are also involved in a Partition Suit titled Payal Kapoor & Anr. vs. Pankaj Jain & Ors., CS (OS) 3156/2015. Both the cases surround the issue of devolution and division of the estate of the deceased which Devender Kumar Jain, inclusive of the immoveable properties as well as intangible assets in the forms of shareholding in the Luxor Writing Instruments Private Limited (hereinafter "LWIPL") and the Luxor International Private Limited (hereinafter "LIPL"), which is also the subject matter of the instant contempt proceedings. The deceased Devender Kumar Jain was the founder and erstwhile owner of the said Luxor Group.

3. The Contemnor No. 1 filed an Interim Application in the Testamentary Case bearing I.A. No. 22174/2014 seeking permission to execute certain documents to continue equitable mortgage created by the deceased with respect to his properties located at F-229, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III, New Delhi and F-89, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III, New Delhi (hereinafter "subject properties"). In the said application, the order dated 14th November 2014 was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court whereby the following directions were passed, which are the subject matter of the instant contempt petition:

"6. Having regard to the urgency in the matter, it is deemed appropriate to direct wife, Smt. Usha Jain, to sign the renewal documents of the bank.

7. It is made clear that the bank shall not extend or increase or grant any additional facility, nor create any further charge on either of the two properties on the basis of which loan has been granted. The execution of the documents by the wife of deceased shall not create any special equity in her favour; and all rights and contentions of all the parties as raised by them in their respective objections are kept open.

******

9. This order is only being passed with a view that the loans granted by the bank are not recalled, which would have an adverse affect on the business of the parties, in which all the parties have some interest.

******

11. Copy of this order will be brought to the notice of the Kotak Mahindra bank. It is made clear that the bank will not create an additional liability or an additional charge on the properties."

4. The petitioner is before this Court alleging wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents/alleged contemnors with regard to the order dated 1