RUPA AND CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus FIRHAD HAKIM AND OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 11-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 648 : 2025 INSC 245
Rupa and Co. Limited and Another 
v. 
Firhad Hakim and Others
(Civil Appeal No(s). 2376-2378 of 2025)
12 February 2025
[B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court having, on earlier occasions, emphasized 
the necessity to abide by the command of its directions and also 
issuing notice to the Chief Secretary to comply with the order, was 
justified in directing the parties to mediation.
Headnotes†
Judgment/Order – Non-compliance of the order of the High 
Court – Aggravated contempt – HIDCO agreed to convey land 
to the appellants on freehold basis for Rs. 4,00,92,000/- – 
Appellant paid the entire amount – However, HIDCO decided 
that allotment would not be on freehold basis but on leasehold 
basis – Later, HIDCO addressed a letter stating that there 
would be change in proposed lease deed – Writ petition by 
appellants – The Division Bench of the High Court by order 
dated 10.02.2020 found the action of respondents therein 
was arbitrary and directed them to register deed of sale/
conveyance – SLP filed by HIDCO was dismissed – Thereafter, 
the appellants alleged non-compliance of the order and filed 
various contempt petitions – The High Court emphasized to 
abide by the command of its directions – However, in one of 
those contempt petitions, the High Court by the impugned 
judgment referred the matter to mediation – Correctness:
Held: The approach of the High Court in passing the impugned order 
is totally untenable – When the High Court itself, on more than one 
occasions in the contempt proceedings, had found that the State 
was bound to comply with the writ of mandamus issued by it vide 
judgment and order dated 10.02.2020 and had also issued notice 
to the Chief Secretary of the State for complying with the directions 
issued by it, it could not have referred the matter for mediation – It 
is further to be noted that mediation has to be by the consent of 
both the parties – Mediation cannot be thrusted upon either of the 
parties – The Division Bench of the High Court in the present case, in 
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 
649
Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others
spite of the resistance of the counsel for the appellants herein, only 
on the basis of the statement of the Advocate General appearing 
in the matter whereby it was submitted that the State was willing 
to offer the appellants an alternative piece of land, has referred the 
matter to mediation – The approach of the State Government in 
the present matter can be said to be one of committing aggravated 
contempt – The State ought to have conveyed the land in question 
to the appellants on the basis of the offer made initially – Besides 
that, asking the appellants to pay according to the current market 
rate after the appellants have succeeded before the High Court 
and this Court is an attempt to disobey and defeat the mandamus 
of the High Court – The impugned order, which has the effect of 
undermining the dignity and authority of the High Court, is not 
sustainable in law. [Paras 9, 11, 13]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Obedience to the command 
of the High Court:
Held: Under the constitutional scheme, a writ issued by the 
High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 
Constitution of India which has not been interfered with by this 
Court has to be followed in letter and spirit, by all the authorities 
who are bound by such a writ – The majesty of law requires that 
due obedience has to be given to the command of the High Court 
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when it 
is not interfered with by this Court. [Para 12]
List of Acts
Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Article 226 of Constitution; Obedience; Command of High Court; 
Majesty of law; Mandamus; Contempt; Mediation; Compliance of 
directions.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2376-2378 
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2024 of the High Court 
at Calcutta in CPAN No. 88 of 2023, CPAN No. 384 of 2021 and 
CPAN No. 1453 of 2022
650
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv., Nishant Kumar , Animesh Kumar, Ms. Animesh 
Kumar, Tanay Aggarwal, Sandip Agarwal, Sumit Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Debarati Sadhu, Anant, Kartikey 
Bhatt, Kunal Mimani, Akshay L

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