Supreme Court Holds Respondent Guilty of Contempt for Violating Court Order. Court finds that the respondents' actions constituted gross contempt by allotting flats in violation of a clear court order.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a contempt petition filed by Major Genl. B.M. Bhattacharjee and another against Russel Estate Corporation and its managing partner for violating a Supreme Court order. The petitioners claimed that the respondents had allotted flats to third parties in January 1992, despite a court order from August 1, 1991, prohibiting further allotments. The respondents contended that the flats were allotted prior to the court's order and that the agreements for sale were valid. The court analyzed the meaning of 'allotment' and concluded that it included the delivery of possession and registration of sale deeds, thus finding the respondents guilty of contempt. The court rejected the respondents' claims of prior agreements and their apology, imposing a one-month imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 on the second respondent for their actions. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to its orders and the consequences of non-compliance.

Headnote

A) Contempt of Court - Violation of Court Orders - Respondents found guilty of contempt for allotting flats in violation of court order - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 12 - The court held that the respondents' actions constituted gross contempt as they violated a clear order not to make further allotments, interpreting 'allotment' to include delivery of possession and registration of sale deeds. The court rejected the respondents' claims of prior agreements as a defense, emphasizing the need for compliance with court orders (Paras 1.1-1.2).

B) Apology in Contempt Proceedings - Nature of Apology - Court rejected the second respondent's apology as conditional and insincere - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 12 - The court found the apology insufficient due to the respondent's conduct and attempts to justify actions contrary to the court's orders (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondents violated the court's order by allotting flats to third parties after the order was issued.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court found the second respondent guilty of contempt, imposing a one-month imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, to be paid within two weeks, with further imprisonment for non-payment.

Law Points

  • Contempt of Court
  • violation of court orders
  • interpretation of 'allotment'
  • significance of agreements of sale
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1993 LawText (SC) (02) 22

Contempt Petition No. 159 of 1992

1993-02-04

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Kuldip Singh

1993 AIR 1632, 1993 SCR (1) 750, 1993 SCC (2) 533, JT 1993 (2) 109, 1993 SCALE (1) 444

M.L. Verma, R. Mukhejee, J. Gupta, M.L. Chibber, Ranjan Dutta, Mrs. N. Dutta, Mrs. Mridula Ray, M.N. Shroff

Major Genl. B.M. Bhattacharjee, Smt. S. Laha

Russel Estate Corporation, Sri Hari Narayan Bhan

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Contempt petition for violation of court order regarding allotment of flats.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought enforcement of the court's order and punishment for contempt.

Filing Reason

Respondents allegedly allotted flats to third parties in violation of a court order.

Previous Decisions

The court had previously ordered that no further allotments be made.

Issues

Whether the respondents violated the court's order The interpretation of 'allotment' in the context of the court's order

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the allotment of flats violated the court's order. Respondents claimed that the allotments were made prior to the court's order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the term 'allotment' included actions beyond mere agreements, encompassing delivery of possession and registration of sale deeds, thus establishing contempt for violation of a clear court order.

Judgment Excerpts

The respondents have committed gross contempt of this Court by their brazen violation of the order dated 1.8.1991. The apology tendered by Respondent No.2 is rejected.

Procedural History

The contempt petition was filed following a Supreme Court order on 1.8.1991, which was violated by the respondents through subsequent allotments.

Acts & Sections

  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 12
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Partially Allows Petition Challenging Industrial Court's Order of Reinstatement with Full Back Wages in BIR Act Case. Employer's Jurisdiction for Misconduct Outside Premises Upheld, but Industrial Court's Power to Re-appreciate Evid...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Adjudicates Death Sentence Confirmation and Appeals against Conviction in 2000 Church Bomb Blast. Accused were convicted under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 124-A, 153-A IPC by Trial Court for conspiracy and bomb blast at St. Peter a...