$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV + CCP(O) 66/2024 in CS(OS) 1906/2006

1. CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD A-5/1, DOCTORS LANE, GOL MARKET NEW DELHI ITS DIRECTOR MR. ANKUR SACHDEVA

2. ANKUR SACHDEVA S/O SHRI O.P. SACHDEVA

305, TAGORE PARK, DELHI-110009

3. LATE PROMILA KISHOR W/O SHRI KISHOR LAI A-5/ 1, DOCTORS LANE, GOL MARKET NEW DELHI

4. OM PRAKASH SACHDEVA S/O LATE K.R. SACHDEVA R/O 305, TAGORE PARK, DELHI-110009 .....Plaintiffs (Through: Mr. T. K. Ganju and Mr. Vikas Dhawan, Sr. Advs with Mr. Aquib Ali, Ms. Amreen Khaliq and Mr. Arsh Kaul, Advs.)

versus M/S SHAHEED MEMORIAL SCTY. (REGD.) & ORS .....DEFENDANTS AND

1. AJAY CHAUDHARY

2. ARJUN CHAUDHARY

3. AJAY YADAV

4. ANURADHA CHAUDHARY C-311, SARITAVIHAR, NEW DELHI

5. REGISTRAR/SUB-REGISTRAR SR-IVA-SHAHDARA NEW DELHI …. CONTEMNORS (Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. V. K. Mehra, Advs for D-2.

Mr. Sumeher Bajaj, Adv for R-4 in CCP(O) 66/2024.

Mr. Vijay Joshi, CGSC with Mr. Shubham Chaturvedi, Adv for D-9 to 11.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % Reserved on: 09.12.2025 Pronounced on: 23.01.2026 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

“The contempt power, though jurisdictionally large, is discretionary in its unsheathed exercise.”

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in S.Mulgaokar, In re1 The present contempt petition arises out of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 06.11.2009, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in FAO (OS) No. 337/2009. The said appeal itself emanated from the interim order dated 06.08.2009, passed in CS (OS) No. 1906/2006. Before adverting to the core of the contempt petition, it is necessary to briefly outline the background of facts and the proceedings having a bearing on the adjudication of the present petition.

2. As per the amended memo of parties dated 22.02.2023, the suit is being prosecuted by 4 plaintiffs against 10 defendants. Plaintiff No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter „plaintiff company‟). The particulars of its shareholding, including the names of its shareholders, as well as the names of directors and the dates of their induction, etc, are specifically pleaded in paragraph no. 1.9 of the plaint. Plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are directors and shareholders of the plaintiff company.

3. Defendant No. 1 is a cooperative society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter „defendant society‟). It is stated that certain shares of the plaintiff company, which were originally held by one C.H. Brahmprakash, were subsequently transferred to the defendant society. Thereafter, the defendant society was allotted additional shares in the plaintiff company.

4. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that defendant society transferred all its shares, from time to time, commencing from the year 1989, and consequently ceased to be a member of the plaintiff company.

5. The record of the plaintiff company of the year 1987, detailing the shareholding of defendant society and the subsequent transfer of such shares to third-party purchasers, are specifically pleaded in paragraph no. 2.1 of the plaint. Defendants No. 2 to 7 claim to be the members of the governing body of the defendant society.

6. Defendant No. 8 is the Registrar of Companies, defendant No. 9 is the

1 (1978) 3 SCC 339 para 23 Assistant Registrar of Companies, and defendant No. 10 is the Registrar of Societies.

7. For the sake of convenience, defendants No. 1 to 10 are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “defendants”, unless the context requires otherwise.

8. The suit is founded on the assertion that defendants, acting in connivance with each other, had falsified statutory and corporate records and interfered with the affairs of plaintiff company with the sole object of defrauding the plaintiffs. It is specifically pleaded that these defendants were illegally holding themsel