Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
Renaissance Buildcon Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Tarjinder Kumar Bansal & Ors. – Respondents
CONT.CAS(C) 802 of 2021, CM APPL. 38927 of 2021, CM APPL. 51855 of 2022
Decided On : 05-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Arbitration Law - Contempt of Court
Act Referred
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT: S.17, S.27, S.9
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.39 R.2(a)
Headnote
(B) Contempt of Court - Maintainability - Court cannot entertain contempt proceedings directly when a specific remedy is available under the Arbitration Act for breaches of arbitral orders. (Paras 9, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought contempt proceedings against former directors of their company who allegedly violated an order restraining creation of third-party rights in certain properties. Despite the order, respondents executed sale deeds, claiming procedural justification.
Findings of Court:
The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, reinforcing that the aggrieved party should seek remedies within the arbitration framework, specifically under Section 27(5) of the A&C Act.
Issues: Whether a contempt petition can be directly filed before the High Court despite the specific remedies available under the A&C Act for violation of interim orders?
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the provisions regarding contempt under the A&C Act remain unchanged despite amendments, and thus remedies under the Act must be sought, dismissing direct contempt petitions filed in court.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Thakur Ankit Sing and Mr. Anjit Dwivedi, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Samar Bansal, Mr. Ashutosh Gupta and Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advs., Ms. Diksha Goswami, Adv., Ms. Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr. Tushar Tokas, Mr. Hemant Saini, Mr. Arvinder Kaur, Ms. Aditi Singh and Mr. Manas Rai, Advs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contempt petition under cc act initiated (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. maintainability objections raised by parties (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's detailed reasoning on section 17 & contempt (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. petition dismissed as not maintainable (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CC Act,] the petitioners seek initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent nos.1 to 5 for violation of orders dated 27.10.2014, 12.12.2014 and 18.07.2015 passed by learned Sole Arbitrator, Hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Arbitrator in proceedings entitled ‘M/s BDR Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Rennaissance Buildcon Company Pvt. Ltd.’.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. In a nutshell, petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 wherein petitioner nos.2 and 3 are Directors, respondent nos.1 to 3 are its former Directors, who resigned on 14.01.2021, respondent no.4 is the purported Authorised Representative of the petitioner no.1, who allegedly participated in the Board Meeting on 20.09.2020, respondent no.5 is the erstwhile Chartered Accountant of the petitioner no.1, respondent no.6/ original claimant before the learned Arbitrator is a loan facility provider also incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with whom the petitioner no.1 mortgaged its lands for securing a loan by way of Memorandum(s) of Understanding dated 06.02.2009 and 07.02.2009, Hereinafter referred to as ‘MOUs and Mortgage Deed(s) dated 05.02.2009 and 10.02.2009, Hereinafter referred to as ‘Mortgage Deeds respectively, respondent no.7, of which petitioner nos.1 to 3 are also Director, was one of the guarantors of the said loan, and respondent nos.8 to 16 are the vendees in whose favour the said Sale Deeds have been executed.
3. As per facts, pursuant to execution of the aforesaid Deeds, as also after issuance of a Letter of Continuing Guarantee and Memorandum of Deposit of Original Title Deeds both dated 06.02.2009 and a cheque for Rs.7,18,25,000/- by the respondent no.7 herein, the respondent no.6 herein invoked arbitral proceedings against the petitioners as well as respondent nos.1 to 3 and 7 herein before the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator, during the pendency thereof passed an order dated 18.07.2015 under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Hereinafter referred to as ‘A&C Act restraining the petitioners as well as respondent nos.1 to 3 and 7 herein, their servants, agents, assigns, legal heirs, etc. from creating any third-party rights, selling, transferring, alienating, parting with possession, etc. of the lands as provided in the Schedules thereto qua the Mortgage Deeds.
4. It is the case of the petitioners herein that despite the aforesaid order dated 18.07.2015, the respondent nos.1 to 3 created third party rights by executing Sale Deeds dated 23.11.2020 and 27.11.2020, Hereinafter referred to as ‘Sale Deeds for land falling within the Schedule of the said order amounting to one acre, as also entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 28.09.2020 for land, also falling within the Schedule of the said order, amounting to four acres, that too on the strength of a forged Board Resolution dated 20.09.2020 purported to have been passed in the Meeting of the Board of Directors of the petitioner no.1 on 20.09.2020 (as it never took place) with respondent no.4 as the purported Authorised Representative of petitioner no.1.
5. At the very outset, the respondent nos.1 to 3 have taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present contempt petition.
6. Accordingly, the present petition was taken up for hearing and the learned (senior) counsels for the parties have advanced their respective submissions on the aspect of maintainability of the present
