URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND versus DHARMESH S. JAIN AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1148 · Decided: 10-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1148
1148
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND
v.
DHARMESH S. JAIN AND ANR.
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 940 of 2021)
In
(Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021)
In
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14724 of 2021)
MARCH 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act,1971 – Civil contempt – Wilful
disobedience of orders passed by Court – High Court stayed arbitral
award passed in arbitral proceedings filed by petitioner against
respondents-alleged contemnors subject to deposit of an amount –
Time period of such deposit was extended by Supreme Court on two
occasions while continuing the order of stay by implication – Plea
of respondents-contemnors that there was no wilful disobedience
and because of financial constraint, they were not in a position to
deposit the amount as ordered by the High Court and the Supreme
Court – At no point of time earlier, such a plea was taken – Held:
On facts, the plea lacked bonafides and was not tenable, being an
afterthought – When a party which is required to comply with the
terms or directions in an order has not done so within such time as
stipulated in the order, two options are available to the party which
was required to comply with such order: (a) give an explanation to
the Court as to the circumstances due to which the party could not
comply with the order of the Court; (b) seek for further time to
comply with the order of the Court – If a delay has occurred in
complying with the terms of an order and the party which was to
comply with the order has not resorted to either of the two aforestated
options, then, the party responsible for delay in compliance, may
be held to have committed contempt – Further, irrespective of whether
or not a decree is executable, the question to be considered in
determining whether a case for contempt has been made out was,
whether, the conduct of the contemnor was such as would make a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1149
fit case for awarding punishment for contempt of Court – In the
case at hand, the conduct of respondent-contemnors was such as
would justify invocation of contempt jurisdiction of Supreme Court
– Not only did the contemnors unreasonably delay and default in
compliance of orders of Supreme Court without explaining the cause
for such default, or seeking extension of time for compliance; but
they also sought to avoid compliance of the order, even after taking
benefit of the extended time period granted for compliance of the
same – The contemnors cannot, at this juncture, claim that the
requirement of deposit was not mandatory, but directory and
therefore non-compliance thereof would not constitute contempt –
On facts, respondents-contemnors willfully disobeyed the orders
passed by the Court and were thereby guilty of civil contempt and
rendered themselves liable for suitable punishment under provisions
of Contempt of Courts Act – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
– s.34.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contempt jurisdiction –
Invocation of – Powers of the Court – Scope and ambit of – Held:
Jurisdiction of a Court under the Act, would not cease, merely
because the order or decree of which contempt is alleged, is
executable under law, even without having recourse to contempt
proceedings – Contempt jurisdiction could be invoked in every case
where the conduct of a contemnor is such as would interfere with
the due course of justice – Contempt is a matter which is between
the Court passing the order of which contempt is alleged and the
contemnor; questions as to executability of such order is a question
which concerns the parties inter-se – Power of the Court to invoke
contempt jurisdiction, is not, in any way, altered by the rights of the
parties inter-se.
Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court
HELD:1.1 In the instant case, the High Court, by order
dated 08th August, 2019 stayed the arbitral award dated
30.08.2018 passed in arbitral proceedings filed by the petitioner
against the respondents-alleged contemnors subject to the
deposit of an amount. The time period of such deposit has been
extended by this Court on two occasions while continuing the
order of stay by implication. Having taken the advantage of the
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND v. DHARMESH S.
JAIN AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
extended time period, the respondent-contemnor cannot, at this
juncture, take the plea that non-compliance with the

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