SUSHILA RAJE HOLKAR versus ANIL KAK (RETD.)

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 30-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 278 
'( --
A 
SUSHILA RAJE HOLKAR 
v. 
ANIL KAK (RETD.) 
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 6 of 2006 
IN 
B 
Civil Appeal No. 5807 of 2005) 
APRIL 30, 2008 
(S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) 
c 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
Land dispute - Sale/purchase of land - Lease agreement 
- Breach of - Filing of suits for specific performance and for 
grant of injunction - Injunction granted by trial Court - Matter 
ultimately came before Supreme Court - Supreme Court 
0 directing parties to maintain status quo till disposal of pending 
suit and respondent to make payment of arrears of rent in terms 
J..., 
of the agreement - Not complied with, by respondent -
Contempt petitions - Held: Breach of the order of the Courts 
by contemnor, whether committed willfully or not, has to be 
E scrutinized strictly by Courts - Order of the Court must be read 
in its entirety to ascertain its effect and purport -
Mere 
technicality should not be a ground to punish the contemnor 
-
The Court should exercise due care and caution while 
initiating contempt proceeding as the power conferred on 
F Courts is restrictive in nature - In the present case, Supreme 
~· 
Court directed payment of rent in respect of premises leased 
out to respondent and not in respect of the property wherefor a 
suit for specific performance was pending- If two interpretations 
of an order are possible, as in the instant case and are 
G ambiguous, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable 
- Interpretation of Statutes. 
¥ 
The petitioner allegedly entered into an agreement 
in favour of respondent in respect of certain area of land. 
Later, a registered deed was executed by her in favour of 
H 
278 
SUSHILA RAJE HOLKAR v. ANIL KAK (RETD.) 
279 
/-'v 
portion of the land in terms of the agreement admeasuring A 
16,000 square feet, but no deed of lease was executed in 
favour of respondent for remaining portion of the land 
which was allegedly in possession of the respondent, for 
which a suit for specific performance of contract and also 
a suit for injunction was filed by the respondent against B 
the petitioner for restraining her from interfering with the 
possession of the land held by him or taking any steps 
for removal of construction. Petitioner in turn filed suit for 
eviction and for payment of rent in terms of the lease 
agreement, which was decreed by the trial court. Appeal c 
filed thereaginst was dismissed by the High Court and 
second appeal was pending before the High Court. In the 
suit for injunction filed by respondent, the trial Court 
granted an order of injunction in respect of portion of the 
land. The order was moddified by the first appellate Court. D 
, _I, 
The High Court set aside the order of first appellate Court 
and restored the one passed by the trail Court. The matter 
came up before this Court, when the Court directed both 
the parties to maintain status quo until the suit is finally 
disposed of and the respondent was directed to make E 
payment of arrears of rent. Allegedly, the arrears of rent 
were not paid by the respondent. The petitioner filed a 
contempt petition. Another Contempt Petition was also 
filed by the petitioner on the premise that inspite of 
directions to maintain status quo, the respondent had 
been raising constructions on the disputed land. F 
Respondent also filed a Contempt Petition on the ground 
that the petitioner has been interfering with the authorities 
of the school which is being run on the disputed land 
despite the order of this Court directing to maintain status. 
quo. 
G 
--. 
Petitioner contended that in terms of the agreement 
for grant of lease, the rent of Rs.50,000/- per month is 
payable by th~ respondent in respect of land in his 
possession; that in view of this Court's order dated 
H 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
/ 
y 
A 1.5.2007, the admitted rent payable was Rs.50,000/- per 
month and in fact a sum of Rs.21 lakhs as arrears of rent 
is due to the petitioner; that the defence of the respondent 
in the eviction suit has been struck off and, thus, the 
respondent is bound to continue to pay the admitted rent; 
B and that the respondent appears to have carried out or 
intended to carry out constructions despite the orders of 
injunction passed against him. 
Respondent submitted that on a proper construction 
of this Court's order dated 19.9.2005, it would be evident 
c that the premises which was admittedly leased out in 
favour of the respondent,

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