Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 930

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Pancholi Kokilaben Badrishbhai - Petitioner
Versus
New Alkapuri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Application (For Breach Of Order) No. 1 of 2021 In R/Special Civil Application No. 188 of 2021
Decided On 13-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Baiju Joshi, Vaibhavi D. Raval.
For the Respondents: Mr Devang Vyas, Sr. Adv. with Mr Jash S. Thakkar, Mr Rasesh H. Parikh, Mr. Hemang H. Parikh, Notice Served, Notice Served By DS.

Willful disobedience of a judicial injunction constitutes civil contempt regardless of purported good faith. Courts maintain the authority to annul transactions executed in violation of stay orders and direct the restoration of the status quo to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 2A - Constitution of India - Article 215 - Contempt of Court - Breach of interim injunction - Willful disobedience - Disregard of judicial order - The term 'willful' implies a deliberate action or omission, done with the specific intent to disobey or disregard a mandate of the court to maintain its authority (Para 24).

(B) Contempt Proceedings - Status of third-party purchasers - Beneficiaries of transactions executed in violation of a subsisting stay order cannot claim the protection of bona fide purchasers - Such contumacious conduct is subject to direct scrutiny by the court, as contempt jurisdiction primarily involves the court and the contemnor (Para 25).

(C) Powers of the Court - Restitution and nullification - The court possesses the inherent power to declare transactions as void and order the restoration of the status quo ante to nullify any advantages gained through contumacious behavior and to uphold the majesty of law (Para 25).

Facts of the case:
A petition was filed alleging breach of an interim injunction order. The moving party contended that despite a court-mandated stay on the enforcement and execution of an auction process, the opposing party engaged in the transfer of the subject property through a sale deed. The respondents argued the auction had already been finalized and characterized the violation as an unintentional technical error.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the respondents had clear knowledge of the stay order, yet proceeded to execute a sale deed without authorization. This conduct was deemed a deliberate attempt to undermine the judicial process. Consequently, the court found the respondents guilty of willful disobedience, necessitating punitive measures and the reversal of the contumacious transaction.

Issues: The central issues were whether the respondents willfully violated the court's interim injunction order, whether the subsequent sale of the property amounted to civil contempt, and what appropriate sanctions or remedial measures should be imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: Willful disobedience of a judicial mandate warrants firm action to preserve the rule of law. Any transaction executed during the effectiveness of a stay order is considered contumacious, and the court, in exercises of its equitable and constitutional powers, must nullify such actions to prevent the beneficiaries from deriving any unfair advantage, thereby ensuring the sanctity of the legal process is maintained.

Result: Application allowed. Respondents held guilty of breach of order; fines and costs imposed with directions to return the property to its prior state.

Table of Content
1. procedural initiation of contempt and breach of order application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contentions regarding status of occupation and possession. (Para 5)
3. analysis of existing court interim orders versus subsequent actions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. disputing culpability regarding property transactions post-injunction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. evaluation of willful and deliberate non-compliance with court directives. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. application of order 39 rule 2a and contempt law standards. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. final adjudication, penalization, and restoration of status quo. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. RULE. Learned counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

3. Present Civil Application is filed by the applicant – original petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow the present Application.

(B) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to initiate appropriate proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC and Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the opponent Nos.2 to 4 herein for flouting the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in SCA No. 188 of 2021.

(C) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue necessary directions under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC and Article 215 of the Constitution of India to the opponent Nos. 2 to 4 to purge the erring opponents may be penalized.

(D) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate order and/or directions under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC and Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the opponents No.2 to 4 to restore the status-quo ante.

(E) Any other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper looking to the facts of this case may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice.

4. Heard Mr.Baiju Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.Hemang Parikh, learned counsel for opponent No.2 and Mr.Devang Vyas, learned senior opponent with Mr.Jash Thakkar, learned counsel for opponent No.4 at length. Perused the material placed on record.

5. Mr.Baiju Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of application and has also submitted that the applicant was bona fide member of the New Alkapuri Cooperative Housing Society Limited – opponent. He has submitted that opponent No.1 has obtained loan from opponent No.2 wherein the applicant was not party to such transaction, however, such loan amount was not paid and, therefore, opponent No.2 had initiated recovery proceedings wherein also the applicant was not party to the proceedings and without intimation and without informing the applicant, an order of possession was passed, which fact was also not intimated to the applicant. It is submitted that thereafter, the Recovery Officer was appointed, who joined as party opponent No.3 and in forceful and high handed manner, they took the possession of the apartment owned and occupied by the applicant and hold the same on auction and, hence, the applicant has filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 188 of 2021 before this Court. He has submitted that originally subject parcel of property was owned by one Somabhai Ambaram Patel and it was under semi-constructed situation and said Somabhai agreed to sell the said subject property in favour of the applicant and after completion of the construction work, the applicant has paid loan obtained by the original allottee from Mehsana District Cooperative Bank and the applicant has to pay all dues including the water connection, village panchayat tax and other taxes and then the same is to be executed in favour of the applicant. He has further submitted that the applicant has paid all the dues and, thereafter, executed sale deed; as also paid transfer fee to the Coop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document