ASHISH SETH versus SUMIT MITTAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 09-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
525
ASHISH SETH
v.
SUMIT MITTAL AND OTHERS
(Contempt Petition(C) No. 34/2016 in
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.5/2015)
OCTOBER  09, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – Dispute between two groups of a Joint
Venture (JV) Company – Seth Group and Mittal Group – The JV
Company had acquired some land and also availed licenses with
an intent to develop the land – Subsequently, both the Groups agreed
to divide the development in the land  and thereupon the development
rights in the land were sold – Dispute arose between them in respect
of payment of liabilities out of the JV Company which gave rise to
various litigations – Matter was referred to arbitration –
Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) dated 04.05.2015 was executed
between the Groups whereunder both the groups were to fulfill the
reciprocal obligations – Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of
the MoS – In the contempt petitions filed by Seth Group, the
grievance was that Mittal Group failed to comply with the obligations
under the MoS and the non-compliance was wilful and intentional
– On 24.04.2020, this Court held that the Mittal Group deliberately
and willfully did not fulfill their obligations under the MoS and as
such they rendered themselves liable for action under the Contempt
of Courts Act – However, two months’ time was given to them to
fulfill their part of obligations under the MoS – Despite the above
specific directions, licenses were not renewed by the Mittal Group
and because of non-renewal of the licenses, the balance amount of
EDC liability was not paid by the Seth Group and even the Mittal
Group also did not pay their liability towards EDC of the said licenses
– Hence IAs filed by both the Groups – Held: Considering the earlier
order dated 24.04.2020, it is not disputed that the Mittal Group
was to renew licenses and for which application was to be submitted
by  them – The three licenses were with respect to the entire 48.03
acres of the land, out of which the development rights of only 14.80
acres were given to Seth Group – Even bifurcation of licenses was
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 525
525
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
with respect to 14.80 acres in favour of Seth Group and the
remaining 33.23 acres in favour of the Mittal Group and others –
Conjoint reading of relevant clauses of MOS showed that the liability
of the Seth Group towards the license renewal fees is with respect
of the lands falling to the share of Seth Group i.e. 14.80 acres and
additionally, the Seth Group is also required to pay half of the
liability of others towards license renewal fees and the Mittal Group
is liable to pay balance  license renewal fees – Thus, both the Groups
are directed to pay their respective license renewal fees liability
within two weeks – As regards the liability towards  EDC, both
Groups desired to avail the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme,
“Samadhan Se Vikas” – In view of that, both the Groups are required
to submit mutual consent opting for the benefit of OTS scheme –
Thus, in continuation of earlier order dated 24.04.2020, directions
passed in respect of renewal of license and payment of amount
towards EDC liability under the new OTS scheme – Matter to be
listed after three months for reporting compliance.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C) No.
34 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 Of 2015.
[Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India]
Jayant Sud, ASG, Anil Grover, AAG Haryana, Ranjit Kumar, K.V.
Viswanathan, Sr. Advs, Abhimanyu Bhandari, Rajnish Kumar Singh,
Rakesh Kumar-i, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Rahul Khurana, Satish Kumar,
Sanjay Kumar Visen, Ankit Goel, Sanjay S. Chhabra, Rajnish Singh,
Nitesh Jain, Ms. Priyanka Kaushik, K.N. Singh, Abhishek Agarwal, Ayush
Sharma, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Bankey
Bihari, Sahil Tagotra, Sachin Mittal, M.L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma,
Anchit Sripat, Himanshu Shekhar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. The dispute is between the two groups – Seth Group and Mittal
Group. Both, the Seth Group and Mittal Group entered into a
Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) dated 4.5.2015, which ultimately
was made a part of this Court’s order dated 5.5.2015, disposing of Writ
Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2015 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
11/2015. Non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid
writ petitions is the subject matter of the present contempt peti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.