The court ruled that failure to sign a Memorandum of Understanding precludes claimants from benefits, and contempt proceedings cannot challenge prior judgments.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present captioned applications are filed by the applicants praying for initiating the contempt proceedings, both civil as well as criminal under Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondents.

2. The proceedings emanate from the judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8530 of 2019 and the judgment and order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1075 of 2022, which was filed against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.8530 of 2019.

3. It is the case of the applicants, who are the legal heirs of Sarojben Kiritbhai Shah (original respondent No.9.1), that the respondents - Developer and the Society have committed civil contempt by not following their commitment of paying monitory benefits to the applicants arising from the Memorandum of Understanding (in short “the MoU”) dated 02.04.2019, and criminal contempt by obtaining the orders from this court through misleading and false inducement.

4. Learned advocate Ms.Megha Jani, assisted by the learned advocate Mr.Meet Thakkar, appearing for the applicants has invited our attention to the various abstracts / averments of the captioned Special Civil Application and also the observations made by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, in order to prove inducement of the respondents. It is submitted that after the applicants have handed over their property i.e. the flat in question to the respondents, pursuant to the observations and directions issued by the learned Single Judge and as confirmed by the Division Bench, the respondents have thereafter demolished their flat and have not extended the monitory benefits as per the MoU. It is submitted by her that as on today, the re- development work is going-on in full swing. It is submitted that the flat of the deceased owner was of 58 sq. yards and as per the MoU, the members, who had 58 sq. yards are to be provided a flat of 99 sq. yards and till re-occupation is possible, a rent of Rs.15,000/- per month and an additional cash royalty of Rs.12,00,000/- is to be paid by the Developer.

5. Learned advocate Ms.Jani, has submitted that the applicants are singled out by the respondent – Society and they are not paid the amount, as mentioned in paragraph No.11 of the present application, only for the reason that the respondent – Society, after convening the Special General Meeting on 30.04.2023 has decided that because of the applicants and one Mr.Kaushik B. Patel, who opposed the writ petition, and the re-development got delayed and since the Society has incurred expenditure of Rs.52,00,000/- to pursue the litigation, such amount is required to be recovered from them. She has further submitted that the litigation on behalf of the Society is funded by the developer, and in case they intend to recover the amount, they have to institute a civil suit, and it cannot be done by resorting to Clause 18 of the MoU.

6. While referring to the pleadings on record and the contentions recorded by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court, it is contended that this Court has allowed the writ petition primarily on two grounds i.e. (i) on the assurances and the representations made by the Society, assuring that the development is for the benefit of all, including the applicants, and such benefit would be available to all, including the present applicants and the members of the Society; and (ii) that the writ petition was not filed for eviction, but it was for temporary shifting and the contesting respondents i.e. the flat owners would be allotted the flat after they are constructed. It is, thus, submitted that the respondents have obtained the orders from this Court by giving false assurances and by inducing the Court to believe the same. She has submitted that in case, the Society or the Developer had