MAJOR GENERAL B.M. BHATTACHARJEE (RETD.)ANOTHER versus RUSSEL ESTATE CORPORATION AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 04-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MAJOR GENL. B.M. BHATIACHARJEE (RETD.) AND 
ANOTHER 
v. 
RUSSEL ESTATE CORPORATION AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 4, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
C 
Section 12--Court's orde!'-Direction not to make further 'allotment' of 
flats-Breach of orde~uilty of Contempt of Coun-Punishment-lmposing 
of 
D 
E 
F 
Worcif & Phrases: 
"Allotment"-Meaning of 
The present Contempt Petition has been tiled complaining that the 
Respondents had allotted certain flats in favour of third parties in viola-
tion of this Court's order dated 1.8.91. The Petitioners' interest has been 
in respect of two flats on the 8th floor. They claimed that the said flats had 
been allott•d to third parties in j~·~uary, 1992, long after this Court's 
'·•~ ;~ " 
order dated 1.8.91. It was also contended that the agreement to sell was a 
fabricated document. 
11, •·" 
I 
The Respondents contended that the said flats were allotted on 
26.4.91 itself, though possession of the flats was handed over on 17.8.1991, 
and sale deeds were executed and registered in March 1992. It was further 
contended that inasmuch as the agreement for sale was entered into long 
before the orders of this Corot were issned, there was no qnestion of 
disobedience of the orders of this Court. 
G 
Finding the Respondent guilty of Contempt of Court, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1. Even assuming that the agreement of sale dated 
. 26.4.1991 is true, the respondents have committed gross .contempt of this 
Court by their brazen violation of the order dated 1.8.1991. By the s.aid 
order this Court directed the respondents 1 and 2 not to make 'any 
H further allotment of any other flats in the building in dispute with effect 
750 
-~ 
•, 
BHATIACHARJEE v. RUSSEL ESTATE 
751 
from today'. The word 'allotment' must be understood reasonably and A 
having regard to the context. The first respondent is not like a Govern-
ment Department or Public Corporation where an allotment order or 
allotment letter is issued from the office in pursuance or which other steps 
are taken. There is no such thing as 'allotment' in this case. According to 
the Respondents there was first an agreement or sale, then delivery or B 
possession and finally a registered sale deed. In the context and cir-
cumstances of the case, the word 'allotment' in the said order means 
making over of the flats; it means delivery of possession and registration 
of the salo-deeds. An agreement of sale, that too unregistered, has DO 
significance in the context, difficult as it is to verify its truth and correct-
ness. This court could not be presumed to have interdicted such an C 
uncertain thing. Admittedly the respondents bad represented to this 
Court, at the time the said order was passed, that they have already 
entered into agreements of salE in respect of the flats and yet this Court 
chose to pass the said order. In the circumstances, it cannot mean any-
thing else than delivery of possession of Rats and their sale. It may also D 
mean an agreement of sale but its meaning is certainly not confined to an 
agreement of sale. To say so is to rob the order of any meaning or content. 
There could not have been any doubt in the mind of the Second Respon-
dent with respect to the meaning of the order. In case of any doubt the 
least he could have done was to ask for a clarification of the said Order. 
He could well have represented that ·be had already entered into an E 
agreement of sale on 26.4.1991 in respect of these Rats and that be may be 
permitted to deliver possession and/or execute sale-deeds in respect of the 
said flats in favour of third parties. He did nothing of the sort. Having 
placed a highly restrictive and unwarranted interpretation upon the order 
of this Court, he went ahead and not only delivered possession of the Rats F 
to third parties subsequent to the said order but also registered sale-deeds 
in their favour. He thus rendered the said order nugatory. 
[755E-H, 756A-E] 
1.2. The conduct of the second respondent as evidenced from the 
material on record establishes beyon doubt that he was trying to play with G 
this Court and was consistently flouting its orders. [758H, 759A] 
)-
2. So far as the apology tendered by the second respondent is 
concerned it is not really an unconditional apology. While tendering apol-
ogy the second respondent bas tried to defend his action. Even if it is H 
> 
~-
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
considered as unconditional 

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