The Court ruled that the definition of 'alienate' does not include 'mortgage', thus determining no contempt occurred.

1. This Contempt petition has been filed by the applicants contending that the respondent has committed an act of contempt by disobeying the orders of this Court dated 17.05.2012 in O.A.No.428 of 2012. Considering the fact that the application is one for contempt, I do not wish to delve too much into the facts set out in the S.9 application and shall narrate the facts relevant for disposing the contempt petition.

2. The petitioners and the respondent had entered into an agreement for developing the property. The agreement had contained an arbitration clause in and by which parties had resolved to settle their disputes through arbitration. Since disputes arose between the parties the petitioners had filed O.A.No.428 of 2012 seeking an order of an interim injunction restraining the respondent, their men or agents, servants, representatives or any person claiming through the respondent, from alienating, selling, encumbering, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with the property described as the A - Schedule in the arbitral proceedings.

3. The A - Schedule property was described as follows:
"2800 Sq.ft. UDS together with 781 Sq.ft. in the 8 floor and 5684 Sq.ft. in 9 floor of the building "Prashanth Real Gold Tower", No.39, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17."

4. When the matter had come for the first time, the respondent had appeared through counsel and submitted an undertaking that the respondent shall not alienate 781 Sq.ft. in the 9th floor owned by him so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court had recorded the said undertaking and had proceeded to close the application since parties had already agreed to appear before the arbitrators in the arbitration proceedings that had been initiated and they had agreed to abide by the award to be passed by the arbitrators.

5. While so, the petitioners have come forward with the contempt petition stating that in the course of the collateral proceedings, when the petitioners had collected information about the status of the property in respect of which the undertaking was given, they came to learn that in wilful breach of the undertaking given, the respondent had alienated the property. The petitioners came to know that the respondent on 01.10.2014 had created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of the IDBI Bank and thereafter since the respondent had failed to repay the loan, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act had been undertaken by the Bank. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that there has been a wilful disobedience of the undertaking given to this Court.

6. A statutory notice was issued to the respondent and the respondent had appeared in person before the Court. A counter has been filed, in which apart from tendering an unconditional apology the respondent would submit that the undertaking which was given has not been violated. The respondent would seek to put in perspective the dispute between the parties and the conduct of the petitioners after the initiation of the arbitral proceedings and how orders of this court has not been disobeyed. The respondent would contend that they have not alienated the property as undertaken by them. The respondent would submit that as per agreement between him and the petitioners 50% of the construction of the property has been completed and handed over to the applicants. Completion Certificate has also been issued and the petitioners have also leased out their share in the property to a Jewellery chain, Joy Allukas.

7. However, when the respondent attempted to work in the 8th floor for his purchaser, which fell to their share, the petitioners started interfering in the said work. That ap