Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a consent decree in Writ Petition No. 1359 of 1991, where the petitioner (buyer) and respondent No.1 (developer) entered into consent terms on 2.4.1996. The developer agreed to construct a building with ground and first floors, each 9 feet high, and hand over possession of a shop to the buyer within six months. Possession was handed over on 18.11.1996. The buyer filed a contempt petition alleging that the construction deviated from the original plan sanctioned by the municipality under Resolution No. 118 dated 11.10.1995, and that a godown was constructed. The developer contended that the plan was modified and approved under term No. 239/1 dated 11.3.1997, and the construction was as per the modified plan. The court examined the consent terms and found no specific prohibition against modification of the plan. It held that the construction was carried out in accordance with the modified sanctioned plan, and there was no willful breach of the consent terms or undertakings. The court dismissed the contempt petition, noting that the buyer had accepted possession without protest and that the dispute was essentially about the terms of the contract, which could be agitated in appropriate civil proceedings.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Consent Terms - Breach of Undertaking - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The petitioner alleged that the developer violated consent terms by constructing a godown and deviating from the original sanctioned plan. The court held that since the construction was carried out as per the modified plan sanctioned by the municipality, there was no willful breach of the consent terms or undertakings. The contempt petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the developer's construction as per the modified sanctioned plan amounts to contempt of the consent terms and undertakings given to the court.
Final Decision
The contempt petition is dismissed. The court held that there was no willful breach of the consent terms or undertakings as the construction was carried out as per the modified sanctioned plan.
Law Points
- Contempt of court
- Consent terms
- Sanctioned plan
- Modification of plan
- Breach of undertaking
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 178
Contempt Petition No. 213 of 1998
Smt. Anjali Helekar for Petitioner, Mr. S.V. Pitre for Respondent No.1, Mr. A.H. Palekar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2
Dhondiram Mahadeo Lanjekar
Chandrashekhar Bhalchandra Gore, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging willful breach of consent terms and undertakings in a property development dispute.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to hold the respondent No.1 in contempt for constructing a godown and deviating from the original sanctioned plan, violating the consent terms.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the construction carried out by the developer was not in keeping with the original plan sanctioned by the Municipality under Resolution No. 118 dated 11.10.1995, and that a godown was constructed in violation of the consent terms.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No. 1359 of 1991 was decided by consent terms on 2.4.1996, with both parties giving undertakings to abide by the consent terms.
Issues
Whether the construction as per the modified sanctioned plan amounts to contempt of the consent terms and undertakings.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the developer constructed a godown and deviated from the original sanctioned plan, violating the consent terms.
Respondent No.1 argued that the plan was modified and approved by the Municipality under term No. 239/1 dated 11.3.1997, and the construction was as per the modified plan.
Ratio Decidendi
Construction carried out as per a modified sanctioned plan does not constitute contempt of consent terms or undertakings, especially when the consent terms do not prohibit modification of the plan and the petitioner accepted possession without protest.
Judgment Excerpts
There is no dispute that the developer handed over the possession of the new shop to the petitioner on 18.11.1996.
The petitioner argues that the building constructed has a godown in the...
The court held that there was no willful breach of the consent terms or undertakings.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No. 1359 of 1991 was disposed of by consent terms on 2.4.1996. The present contempt petition was filed in 1998 alleging violation of those consent terms. The petition was heard and decided on 22.2.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
