M/S ATMA RAM BUILDERS P. LTD. versus A.K. TULI & OTHERS

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 935 · Decided: 10-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 6 S.C.R. 935 
lu;r;J~~ '''"'f-"116 
~ .. 1 ·· 
· : ... '"1~·71 
· ·:) 
.·•\tf:.(, 
jj~-r-;vr,.r.uc:-; 
A 
nEufi,,:'.i\'. M/S:1 AfMA\RAM ·'BUILDERS;,PJLTD.v•;i, if:i21fh. '·1 A 
a'·'e'{iJVtiJ :: __ ... ;. (•fJ!Bn ,,.1;~ ,;::: :.,_YtV}V .!inu\ .. ii~P.i3 1nmu>i -~n:i2·h.>1 
rm:tuGt1 ·3•:i;'t1f; ·.i AK~·.IT"l:JLI &iOTHERSr,,cwn.~A .1 (;J ::_ 
lir•>~ 
bn11l,CQntempt1 l?.etitioii (C)•iNosr .140J-=l 144 of. 20t1·A 
.1Gi~1 
sri8.-~ lG.nu>i ~~-.d)!e·~~; ... 
r'"n1'·1\~N~r1ir;; 1 •. ,,2 .t.o1f1~::v-12 Gn8fl1Si-1 .b1 1LJ 8 
SLP. (:;0t}::·~os;:'27~q5-27759 of {2010 :; "'· iir..', < l B 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND 'GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
C.onte.mpt Qf.,Court - Eviction clecr~e upheld by the. l;ligh c 
;·~rt
1
~::-·qr .11_•·1 
• 
-·~rtj~ ,1· 
·.<')''. 
·- .... , :. ,. 1-·::·)""i 
,. · 
- ·. 
1' .•. 
y 
Court·~· pf!P[f!/p(C.<?,qrt ffi~ri1i$.s,~,ccs4p,_hQy.'_~vet, 9rant~d,,sff, 
monthJ'
1
'flme'~tb the I tehaht 'to Vacate' 
1tfle 're mises o~ 
furnishirfg''bstia1·;~Nq~Vt~~ir9.
1
•
1
.2··~iefi~nl;9~it#e,((u!fi~~he,~
1 
undertaking n6~
1
va~atJ'8 'tfl;:r -p1feinlse~·'!:!{A'flegeCJ'suli-tenaM/t 0 
raised frivolOO's O'bJe'i::tions1ifif.itJ;ff3'6x(:J80tio1'lipto~r;Jif.igs which 
D 
was rejected - ln,an:>app-e'aliffled.lthereagainst,B'AdditionaP 
District Judge by a detailed order sta¥.~£1.t!'e,0v.;f!,[f~rt of 
possession - Contempt petitions filed by the landlord - Held: 
Additional District Judge-Contemnor by staying thetv/arrants 
._:i 
of possessi9.n:rPJf!P...l{f9!/Y:St.!cP~f~ed_edcaf)d,.cwf!r,rt:tled,order E 
passed byt1sup.r:e.we,;,"<;9µrt'(;:;,,.Jh,e {!Jrde519t-:,$pp[efTJe,:Court 
directing t/1'3::~efJC1!1J)o,:yaga{~. P!'!fT!lS.ee1 iQ .,s(JJ: rpo.nth_sr,,was 
totally floyt~P Q"7 1 Pc<!e!;Pf:/..S~~fi(,by, th~; Adcii(ional. D/stric~ Judge, 
quashed - Cliief Justice, g(cth,e,'-Hfgfy gourt Siirected·tO, take 
'1 
disciplinary action against the Additional pistrict Judge. 
:srt ~1·:1h.1· .. 2 :.-1 ··: 
.'_·~.- 1v .. ~.J.~ ·._.;:1; ·.: 
,_J,.< ·J<J Fri,~:-. 
F 
Jµc:Jiciary ,-:-· Subprdinatejudioiary.:j Certain·'.section. of the.;;J 
subQfdin~:te'ti:t1diciary;;passing1,or..dets.c.on,cextranEW:11s·il 
co.osicfe.r.atiQt.Wt-:.'-He.lctAS.uc;h.:kifi1dof..rQalpractices i/J.ave tb:'bEMt 
tot-allYiWe.13deJil.i~tqlsh;)'onu rm 1etilien lsrll sts1~ur.otra1 i(i0rns·1txe f) 
\111-CfVlt! ()f~ff~\tNA 'P 5URf~'BTct
08t{t~:C~rit~'1tT'
1~ ep:~nuoW~ G 
(clVi~lf.rJ?fii .iio~&-1' 1br2olf1f' . r rv:>. Jnql-\ dit~u , ~j .1 ,Pn1: 101 :_• .c •i,;; f,) 
ei>w wmo :uu mit0 ,ZQ~1ill::>soo1q no11uooxe sn1 n; bsln e1evv 
tirHncSl::FM(CD):CNo:·2:7i7'55::.277'.59~of~2©1'0;1;' 01rit ,-.::ir'. ,, H t:": :uoH 
•···-1""1;')• 1,,.. I 
t ' 
~ 
~._I t:,., 
r••t 
.. 935 
H 
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Dushyant Dave, G.L. Rawal, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mukul 
Rohtagi, Jayant Bhushan, Pramod Swarup, Bina Madhuan, 
Krishna Kumar Singh, Amit, Vinita Sasidharan (for Lawyer's 
Knit & Co.), Ashwani Kumar, Kuljeet Rawal, Radhika Gautam, 
Rishi Agrawala (for E.C. Agrawala), Garima Prashad, Ninad 
B Laud, Pareena Swarup, Sushma Verma, Shekhar Kumar, Asha 
G. Nair, Anil Katiyar for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
C 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
D 
E 
Special Leave Petitions were filed in this Court against the 
judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 14th September, 2010 
by which the Delhi High Court had rejected the second appeal 
filed by the tenant against the decree of eviction. 
By our order dated 06th October, 2010, we dismissed the 
special leave petitions by the following order: 
"Taken on Board. 
Heard. 
We find no merit in the special leave petitions and they are 
dismissed accordingly. However, we grant six months' 
time from today to the petitioner to vacate the premises 
in question on furnishing usual undertaking before this 
F 
Court within six weeks from today." 
From a perusal of the above order, it is evident that the 
tenant had to vacate the premises in question within six months' 
from the date of dismissal of the special leave petitions and to 
furnish usual undertaking within six weeks from that date. It is 
G extremely unfortunate that neither an undertaking was furnished 
nor did the tenant vacate the premises in question on the expiry 
of six months, i.e., 06th April, 2011. Instead, frivolous objections 
were filed in the execution proceedings, and our order was 
flouted. Hence, these contempt petitions have been filed by the 
H landlord. 
ATMA RAM BUILDERS P. LTD. v. A.K. TULi 
937 
It is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.