DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 08-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, S. MOHAN, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
! 
v. 
SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 8, 1995 
B 
[P.B. SWANT, S. MOHAN AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, Jl] 
Constitution of India : Articles 129 and 142-Contempt of Court--
Respondents violating directions of Court-Also filing suit in High Court in 
respect of same subject matter regarding which their special leave petition had 
C been dismissed-Suo Motu notice to respondents by Court-Contemnors 
tendering japology-Held, respondents' actions amounted to Contempt of 
Court-Apology is not a weapon to defence forged to purge guilt of offen-
ces-Contemnors sentenced to simple imprisonment-However, sentence 
defe"ed subject to conditions. 
D 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : ss.2(a) & 2(c)-contempt of 
Court-Criminal contempt-Motive-Contemnors filing suit in High Court 
after dismissal of special leave petition on same subject matter by Supreme 
Court-Held, to file a suit and pray for injunction after dismissal of special 
leave petition, would clearly constitute criminal contempt-A wilful action on 
E part of contemnor~ to undennine dignity of Supreme Court and the majesty 
of law-Conduct of Contemnors tends to bring authority and administration 
of law into disrespect or even disregard-It equally tends to interfere with or 
prejudice litigants during litigation-In the case of criminal contempt intention 
or motive is i"elevant-So called bona fides as filling of suits because of 
p 
"legally opined" are totally i"elevant. 
The petitioner, Dclhi Development Authority held an auction of a 
Commercial towers plot on 8.10.1980. The bid of the Respondent-Company 
being the highest i.e. Rs.9.82 Crores was accepted and the respondents 
G deposited 25% of the bid amount. Th~ DDA confirmed the bid and asked 
the respondents to make the balance payment of 75% of the bid amount 
within 90 days as per the conditions of the auction. The respondents went 
on delaying the payment. In 1987, the parties entered into an agreement 
1
~ereunder the respondents agreed to pay the amount in instalments by 
15.9.89. However, the respondents did not pay the money and continued to 
H delay the payment by approaching the Government for directions to the 
1010 
~ 
' 
I, 
... ~-
D.D.A v. SKIPPER CONSTN. 
1011 
DDA. The respondents further protracted the delay and filed a suit and A 
thereafter a writ petition before the High Court. Inspite of directions of 
the High Court, the respondent did not deposit the amount. Ultimately, 
the suit and the writ petition were dismissed. The respondent filed a 
special leave petition before this Court against the judgment of the High 
·Court dismissing the writ petition. 
On 29.1.1991 this Court passed an interim order to the effect that the 
respondents would deposit the required amount with the DDA and that the 
respondents would not induct any person in the property or create any right 
B 
in favour of any third party. Inspite of this, the respondents issued adver-
tisement in newspapers on 4.2.1991 seeking to create third party rights in C 
respect of the said property. The special leave petition was dismissed on 
25.1.1993 and the DDA took possession of the property free from all en-
cumbra:ices and the monies paid by the respondents were forfeited. 
After dismissal ~f their special leave petition, the respondents once 
again filed a suit before the High Court claiming permanent injunction D 
restraining the DDA from interfering with the title and possession of the 
property and for a declaration that all dues had been paid by the respon-
dents to the DDA. The DDA filed application for rejection of the plaint 
contending that the suit was barred by resjudicata. It also issued notice 
for auction of the property. The High Court allowed the auction to proceed E 
with, but restrained the DDA from accepting or confirming the bid. Ag~ 
grieved, the DDA filed the Special leave petition. 
While disposing of the special leave petition of the DDA, the Court, 
exercising suo motu powers, issued notice to the partners of the respon· 
dent-Company to show cause as to why they should not be punished for 
contempt of Court for their acts of instituting a suit in the High Court in 
respect of the same subject matter after this Court confirmed the order of 
the High Court, and entering into agreement, handing over possession and 
creating interests in third parties in respect of premises in dispute in 
defiance of the order of this Court. 
· 
F 
G 
Contemner No. 1 filed an affidavit stati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.