LexPATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI & ANR. versus PATEL CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 1169 PATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI & ANR. v. PATEL CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI & ORS (CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 12-13 OF 2006. IN SLP (C) Nos. 7659-7660 of 2004) JULY 21, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 12- Contempt of court A B - Violation of orders passed by Supreme Court - Contempt c petitions - Held: Wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by the apex Court can never be said to be bona fide, honest or in good faith - It calls for serious view to ensure proper administration of justice - On facts, there was inten- ~ tional and deliberate violation and disobedience of the orders 0 dated 26.04.06 and 10.01.05 -Apology tendered by contem- ners not an act of penitence, contrition or regret - Acceptance of such apology would be allowing contemners to go away with impunity after committing gross contempt of court - Contem- ners held guilty uls. 12 of the Act, r/w s.94(c}, 0 39 r.2-A CPC and Article 129 and awarded simple imprisonment for two E weeks - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.94(c}, 0 39, r 2-A (as amended by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 129. _., The dispute in the instant SLPs pertains to the trans- F fer of and construction on certain properties claimed to be joint family properties. By this Court's order dated 26.04.04 the interim relief restraining the defendants from putting up any construction on suit land as also transfer- ring the same, granted by the High Court was allowed to G be continued. Subsequently, by order dated 10.01.05, ,,, SLPs were disposed of holding that any construction by purchasers on ·suit properties would be subject to out- come of suit; that any third party right that may be cre- 1169 H 1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 10 S.C.R. A ated, should be done after notice to petitioners; and that the pendency of proceedings should be notified to third parties. However, respondents allegedly sold the prop- erty, received consideration and executed sale deeds without notice, acting in violation of this Court's order B dated 26.4.2004 and 10.1.2005. Hence the present con- ,. tempt petitions. Disposing of the contempt petitions, the Court HELD: 1. From the overall considerations of the mat- e ter and viewed in the light of series of events, the respon- dents-contemners have disregarded and violated the or- ders passed by this Court on 26.04.04 and 10.01.05 and the contemners are responsible for such act. Consider- ing the facts and circumstances in their entirety, ends of 0 justice would be served if the respondents/contemners are held guilty u/s. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, + r/w s. 94(c) and Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Code of Civil Proce- dure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article 129 of the Con- stitution. The respondents-contemners are ordered to un- E dergo simple imprisonment for a term of two weeks. [Paras 44, 45 and 69] [1191-E-F 1200 E-Fl 2. 1 With regard to the defence that Development Scheme was jointly promoted for part 'A' land and part 'B' F land, is clearly an after thought and the plea has befm put forward without there being anything on record. Though "' it was stated that initially, M, H, Rand RG were given shops in part 'B' property, no such agreements/deeds have been placed on record. It was then stated that after interim stay G was vacated and request was made by them to allot them shops in part 'A' property, no evidence/material has been addu~ed by the contemners. Stereo-type affidavits have been filed sworn on one and the same day, July 29, 2006 .,_ after contempt notice was served upon the respondents. Even the sale-deeds do not recite part 'A' or 'B' of the prop- H J PATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI & ANR. v. PATEL 1171 CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI & ORS. erty or the fact that earlier the allottee was granted shop A in part '8' property but after the disposal of the SLPs, re- quest was made by the purchaser to convert the allot- ment from part 'B' property to part 'A' property. Therefore, .... the so-called defence is apparently to avoid conse- quences of contempt proceedings. Moreover, the defence B does not appear to be probable. Normally, no reasonable and prudent man/woman who purchases immovable property with a 'clear' title would request the owner of the property to allot him/her property over which his title is not c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.