Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Ms. Jyoti Singh, J
M/S. SOLOMAN ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AURHORITY – Respondent
CS(COMM) 220/2019 | CCP(O) 90/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Mr. Siddharth Arora
For the Respondents: Mr. J.P. Sengh, Ms. Maneka Tripathy, Ms. Shashi Pratap Singh, Ms. Aishwarya Bhatia, Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Mr. Jashpal Singh, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Mr. Shivam Sachdeva
The court held that executing a Lease Deed contrary to status quo orders constitutes contempt, undermining its authority.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Allegation of wilful disobedience of court order - The Plaintiff is alleged to have executed a Lease Deed contrary to the court's order to maintain status quo on the suit property - The court examines whether the executed document constitutes a Lease Deed or a Leave and License Agreement - Prima facie, the Plaintiff appears to have violated the interim order. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Issues of Encumbrance - The Court rules on whether the actions of the Plaintiff have encumbered the suit property, and orders the Plaintiff to show cause for contempt. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff is accused of violating a court order by executing a document with onerous terms that breaches previous restrictions on the suit property.
Findings of Court:
The Court finds prima facie merit in the allegation of contempt, stating that actions taken by the Plaintiff amount to breach of the prior court order.
Issues: Whether the Plaintiff's actions constitute a breach of the order regarding the status quo on the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The executed agreement fundamentally alters the nature of possession and control over the property contrary to the court's directive, indicating potential contempt.
Result: Notice issued to the Plaintiff to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of contempt due to breach of court order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over nature of executed document and its implications. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's prima facie assessment of contempt and subsequent actions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. order for the plaintiff to show cause regarding contempt. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
% 29.08.2025 CCP(O) 90/2024
1. This contempt petition is filed on behalf of Delhi Development Authority/Defendant No. 1 alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience and non-compliance of order dated 15.05.2019 passed by this Court in CS (COMM) 220/2019.
2. Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned Senior Counsel for DDA submits that by order dated 15.05.2019, parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding suit property bearing No. 65/2, Wazirpur Industrial Area. However, contrary to and in violation of the directions passed by the Court, CS(COMM) 220/2019 Page 1 of 3 Plaintiff has executed a Lease Deed on 24.08.2023 through its Director Sh. Raj Kumar Harjai in favour of M/s. Hridya Cars Pvt. Ltd. through one Sh. Mohit Garg. Taking the Court through the Lease Deed, it is submitted that the Lease has been entered for a period of 9 years with lock in period of 9 years with no liberty to the Licensor to terminate the Lease before expiry of lock in period and significantly, the Licensor can enter the demised premises only with the permission of Licensee and that too on certain conditions. It is urged that by leasing out the property and that too with such onerous terms, Plaintiff has lost all control over the possession of the property, which is in teeth of specific direction of the Court not to ‘encumber’ the suit property.
3. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that there is no violation or disobedience of the Court order inasmuch as Plaintiff has only granted license to M/s. Hridya Cars Pvt. Ltd. and the document cannot be construed as a Lease Deed. The Licensee is only using the property under a License and thus the suit property is neither let out nor encumbered in any manner.
4. Heard learned Senior Counsels and examined their respective submissions.
5. By a detailed order dated 15.05.2019, Court had restrained the Plaintiff company as well as Sh. Raj Kumar and his brother Sh. Surender Kumar from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the suit property or the shareholding of the Plaintiff company or inducting any other person as Director of the Plaintiff. Defendants namely: (1) DDA; (2) Yogita Baxla; (3) Mahesh Pal Singh; (4) Harish Chawla; (5) Peeyush Aggarwal; (6) Rajesh Luthra; and (7) Ajay Singh were also restrained from alienating or encumbering or parting with possession of the property or disturbing CS(COMM) 220/2019 Page 2 of 3 exclusive possession claimed by the Plaintiff. DDA asserts that despite the interim order of this Court, Plaintiff has executed a Lease Deed on
24.08.2023 with M/s. Hridya Cars Pvt. Ltd.
6. While DDA claims that the document dated 24.08.2023 is a Lease Deed, Plaintiff claims that it is a Leave and License Agreement. Be that as it may, there is prima facie merit in the contention of Mr. J.P. Sengh that the property has been let out for a period of 9 years from 01.10.2023 till 01.10.2032 albeit subject to earlier termination in the manner provided therein. From the document which is on record, it is evident that lock in period is 9 years and it is stipulated that prior to expiry of 9 years, the Deed cannot be terminated by the Plaintiff. There are covenants in the Deed which reflect that there are constraints on the Plaintiff from entering the demised premises. In my prima facie view, the action of the Plaintiff violates the order dated 15.05.2019.
7. Issue notice to M/s. Soloman Engineers Pvt. Ltd./Plaintiff to show cause why contempt be not initiated against it, returnable on 09.10.2025.
8. In the meantime, reply, if any, be filed by the Plaintiff.
