Civil contempt occurs when a party knowingly contravenes court orders, resulting in the deprivation of rights for another party involved in litigation.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 17th December, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Ex.P.69/2017, whereby the appellant has been held guilty of civil contempt on account of violation of injunction orders dated 15th April, 2019 as well as 28th January, 2020 in EA No. 85/2019. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:

"21. The order dated 17.06.2020 passed in CS(OS) No.109/2017 also shows that the JD received those cheques in the name of his daughter - Ms. Sonia Modi, which cheques have admittedly been encashed. Correspondingly, the JD had begun taking other steps to ensure that he keeps up his side of the bargain under the settlement agreement, in collusion with Mr. Romi Garg. To that end, Mr. Romi Garg withdrew his stay application filed in FAO (OS) No.116/2018 which resulted in vacation of the stay order (second injunction) directing the parties to main status quo with respect to the subject property since 18.07.2018. Considering the fact that this Court had already been called on to exercise its jurisdiction as an executing court and was concerned with the status of the subject property, neither the JD nor Mr. Romi Garg felt it necessary to inform this Court of their purported settlement agreement. Furthermore, despite the fact that he was engaged in a litigation battle pertaining to this very property, even the DH was not informed of this settlement by either the JD, rather it is only by virtue of being a party to the aforesaid FAO that he learnt about the same. The DH responded to this development by immediately filing a suit to assail the settlement, being CS(OS) No.150/2020, and protect his rights under the award passed in his favour on 21.11.2016/12.01.2017. Finally, the Court dealing with CS(OS) No.150/2020, on 26.06.2020, after noticing the fact that the JD had entered into agreements to sell with the two parties and had obtained huge amounts in lieu thereof from each of them, directed the JD to deposit the keys of the subject property with the Registrar General of this Court in order to prevent it from creating any further charges on the property. Although this order was assailed by the JD in FAO(OS) No 34/2020, the learned Division Bench modified the same on 06.07.2020 only after recording the statement of undertaking given by the JD and Mr. Romi Garg that they will not execute the sale deed till further orders are passed by the Court dealing with CS(OS)150/2020. Be that as it may, the fact remains that even though the JD has not yet successfully executed the sale deed in favour of Mr. Romi Garg/his nominee as per his explicit commitment in the settlement, he has appropriated an enormous sum of INR 7,01,00,000/- from Mr. Romi Garg by promising to immediately execute the sale deed in lieu thereof. The intention of the JD, reflected from his voluntary acceptance of the sale consideration notwithstanding the injunction orders operating on the subject property, is plainly mala fide and an attempt to overreach the orders of this Court.

22. Were it not for the intervention of the DH, who preferred a suit, and the Court, which passed the orders on 26.06.2020 and 06.07.2020, the JD would have been successful in its endeavour to get the sale deed executed in favour of Mr. Romi Garg which would have not only been in blatant violation of the various injunction orders operating against him, but would have also seriously prejudiced the rights of the DH. Thus, I do not find any merit in the JD's plea that since no third-party rights have been created, the JD cannot be said to have violated the orders passed by this Court. The facts noted hereinabove show that the JD took active steps to ensure immediate execution of the sale deed and handing over of possession of the subject property to Mr. Romi Garg/his nominee, which failed only because the DH filed CS(OS) No.150/20