JUDGMENT Khanwilkar A.M., J.
1. Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act consisting of various tenements purchased initially by the employees of Air India Corporation and its subsidiaries. Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company, of which respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director and was entrusted with the further development of building Nos. 26 and 17-A in terms of the Development agreement dated 29th March, 1997. Certain differences arose between the parties, which resulted in respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filing suit in this Court, being Suit No. 3625 of 2000 for recovery of amounts and injunction against the petitioner society. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents Nos. 3 to 5 falsely claim to have purchased the disputed flat No. 301, 401 and 501 in building No. 26 from the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. According to the petitioner, the said respondents Nos. 3 to 5 have aided and abetted and actively participated in the act of contempt. Suffice it to observe that the controversy in this petition is confined to Flat No. 301 on the third floor, flat No. 401 on the fourth floor and Flat No. 502 on the fifth floor in Building No. 26. The case of the petitioner is that in the proceedings before this Court, respondent No. 2 filed affidavit dated 20th November, 2000 clearly conceding the position that the said three flats were in possession of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and were unsold at the relevant time. This averment can be discerned from para 6 of the affidavit of respondent No. 2, which reads thus :
"... The flats in the bldg. No. 26 have been allotted to the members as per the list annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit 'C' and where some of the flats on the 3rd to 5th floors allotted to the plaintiff are to be sold by the plaintiff as per the Clause 3 of the power of attorney dated 2-4-1998..."
Exhibit 'C' to the said affidavit specified the names of the occupant/ purchaser of the respective flats in Building No. 26. Insofar as the three flats referred to above are concerned, which are subject-matter of this proceedings, being flats Nos. 301, 401 and 502, name of respondent No. 1 Prajakta Engineering and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. was shown against those flats to indicate that the said flats were yet to be allotted to any member of the petitioner society. In the same para 6 of his affidavit, respondent No. 2 has further asserted as follows:
"... At this stage when the defendant No. 1 society having reached its goal on obtaining the conditions occupation certificates and Municipal water connection is attempting to grab the said flats back, which are in rightful exclusive possession and in ownership of the plaintiff. The society has now started to delay the issue of share certificates to some of the enrolled members in breach of Clause 9 of the agreement dated 29-31997 directing some unlawful gains with ulterior motive. Consequently the said members have withheld the final payment of their contribution from the plaintiffs payment . On enquiries with the said affected members, no buyer is coming forward to join this defendant No. 1 Society by purchasing unsold flats of the plaintiff in Building Nos. 17-A and 26, thereby lockingup huge funds of the plaintiff..."
The said affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Notice of Motion No. 2599 of 2000 in suit instituted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 being Suit No. 3625 of 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of such representation made, the argument on behalf of both the parties was considered by the Single Judge of this Court in the said Notice of Motion No. 2599 of 2000 in Suit No. 3625 of 2000 and the concerned Single Judge (F.I. Rebello, J.) in his decision dated December 2, 2000 was persuaded to issue direction against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the disputed flats in the following terms :
"(1) In so far as building No. 26 is concerned, the possession/occupation of the defendants not to be interfered with. The plaintiffs not to sell or create third party rights in respect of flats not already sold out and which are now standing in the name of the plaintiffs as shown by them on affidavit. This will be subject to the final decision of other proceedings pending in this Court. On the said proceedings being disposed of, liberty to the parties to apply to this Court for further reliefs and other directions in respect of building No. 26 on]y."
The learned Judge, in the said decision, has, in substance, accepted the stand of the petitioner that the occupation of the building was with the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were only discharging the building contract or development contract. In other words, the learned Judge proceeded to pass order on the basis of the case made out in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 specifying the status of the said flats at the relevant time. The case of the petitioner is that even after the said order was passed, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have conceded the position that the subject flats were in their occupation and were unsold flats as can be discerned from the communication sent by the petitioner's Advocate dated 1st January, 2001 in response to which the Advocate's reply was sent on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in which it is conceded in para 1 that the remaining flats in Building No. 26 are in possession of the said respondents, as well as the letter sent by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 dated 4th January, 2001 wherein para 3, it is stated as follows:
"I say that there is no vacant flat in the U.L.C. Building No. 26. Either the same is in possession of the allottee or the plaintiff as mentioned in Exhibit 'C annexed to my affidavit dated 20-11 -2000. The plaintiff has not violated or committed contempt of any order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid matter."
It is the petitioner's case that, however, for the first time, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the affidavit dated January 9, 2002, filed in response to Notice of Motion No. 3056 of 2001 in Suit No. 3014 of 2001, which suit has been filed by the petitioner for recovery of amount from the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, has disclosed that the concerned flats on the third, fourth and fifth floors in Building No. 26 have been sold to third parties, inter alia, to respondents Nos. 3 to 5 herein (This affidavit was sworn on 9th January, 2002). The case made out in this affidavit by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is that the said flats were sold with the concurrence of the petitioner society and the petitioner society, in fact, has issued letter of allotment in favour of the respective purchasers. Essentially, on the basis of the aforesaid developments, the petitioner has filed present contempt petition on 7th October, 2002 clearly asserting that the stand now taken on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner society has already issued letter of allotment in favour of the purchasers is false and that the said document has been fabricated to subserve the ulterior design or respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to successfully defy the order of injunction passed by this Court on 2nd December, 2002, which was still operating against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It is asserted by the petitioner that respondents Nos. 3 to 5 have connived, aided and abetted the commission of contempt of this Court by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to defy the order passed by this Court on December 2,2000. In the petition, it is clearly stated that the documents relied on behalf of the respondents are on the face of it back-dated and fabricated documents prepared only to justify their act of commission and omission. It is the petitioner's case that the purpose and object of creating such documents was to defeat the order dated 2nd December, 2000 as referred to above, for which reason respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have made themselves liable for contempt under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, as well as Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners expressly denied that the society at any point of time has allotted the subject flats to the concerned purchasers, as claimed by the respondents. The petitioner has also asserted that it has not received any copies of any agreement entered into between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the one hand and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 on the other. The petitioner also states that no application for membership has been made by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and their claim that they were members of the petitioner society was ex facie bogus. It is on these assertions the present contempt petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that the respondents are guilty of contempt by violating the order dated 2nd December, 2000 by creating a document purporting to be an agreement and/or allotment letter and creating a purported right in favour of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and for which purpose the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are liable to be convicted and sent to Civil prison and attachment of properties of the respondents;
(b) such other and further reliefs as this Court may deem fit."
2. This Court initially issued notice before admission of the contempt petition and subsequently, after hearing both sides, by order dated 1st September, 2003, was of the prima facie opinion that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order passed by this Court for which reason proceeded to issue show cause notice to the said respondents. Subsequently, show cause notices have been issued to the other respondents by order dated 12th December, 2003 for having abetted the violation of the order passed by this Court and wilfully violating the same. Pursuant to the show cause notices issued to the respondents, the respondents have appeared and filed reply affidavits.
3. In substance, the defence of the respondents is that the contempt petition as filed on 7th October, 2002 was barred by limitation. According to the respondents, the limitation for filing contempt action would arise from the date of knowledge of the fact that subject flats have been sold out by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. According to the respondents, in fact, the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner society, in one, of the action before this Court dated 26th February, 2001 acknowledges the knowledge of such transaction and that should be taken as the starting point for computing the limitation. If it is so, the petition as filed on 7th October, 2002 is barred by limitation. It is next contended that the petition has been verified by one T.P. Pilley, Chairman of the petitioner society, without asserting that he had authority to take out such proceedings nor any resolution giving such authority to him has been placed on record. In so far as merits is concerned, the case of the respondents is that the subject flats have been allotted by the petitioner society as back as in May and July 1999 and the allotment letters issued in favour of the respective purchasers, respondents herein, have been placed on record, which are duly signed by the then President and Honorary Secretary, Shri Grover and Shri Kadam respectively. On this basis, it is contended that the transaction in respect of the flats was known to the petitioner society and in fact the petitioner society failed to disclose that position before this Court when the order dated 2nd December, 2000 came to be passed. Moreover, it is stated that till the affidavit came to be filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this Court on 20th November, 2000, the flats were not transferred in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 5, the purchasers, because by that time, the payment as was required to be made was not offered by the concerned purchasers. It is only after filing of the affidavit in November 2000, but before the order came to be passed by this Court on 2nd December, 2000, the stated persons made payment to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, consequent to which the respondents handed over possession of the said flats to the purchasers, respondents Nos. 3 to 5. In other words, it is now asserted before this Court that although the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this Court mentions that subject flats were still held by the said respondents, however, before the order came to be passed on 2nd December, 2000, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 parted with possession of the said flats to the said purchasers in November, 2000, and that was done with the consent of the petitioner society. Reliance is also placed in the affidavit of T.P. Pilley filed in Contempt Petition No. 97 of 1999 in Writ Petition No. 2165 of 1998 dated 20th* February, 2001 and the order passed by the Single Judge of this Court in the said Contempt Petition No. 97 of 1999, which concedes the position that all the flats on the ground, first and second floors of the said building (No. 26) and the rest of the F.S.I, is consumed and allotted by the society to its members and the same is fully occupied. On the basis of the said affidavit of Mr. Pilley dated 28th February, 2001, and the observations made by this Court in order dated 20th February, 2001, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the case now made out by the petitioner that the fact regarding transfer of the subject flats in favour of the respondents purchasers was not known is unacceptable. Whereas, according to the respondents, the petitioner society has been party to the transaction in favour of those persons. It is the case of the respondents that the present petition has been filed only to extricate the petitioner society from the possible action to be taken by the Collector and Urban Land Ceiling Department, having realised that it was not possible to comply with the requirement of 10 per cent allocation of flats for U.L.C. purpose. Accordingly, the Counsel appearing for the respondents have referred to materials on record to make good the aforesaid submissions . It is further contended that the theory propounded by the petitioner that the documents relied upon by the respondents are fabricated is unacceptable. On this argument, the respondents submit that the contempt petition should be dismissed being devoid of merits and the show cause notices be discharged.
4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record with the assistance of the Counsel appearing for the parties and the oral submissions advanced before this Court, I shall first proceed to examine the nature of stand taken by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before this Court which led to passing of order dated 2nd December, 2000. There is substance in the assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that the stand taken before this Court by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 clearly asserted that subject flat Nos. 301, 401 and 502 were held by the said respondents at the relevant time. That position is stated on affidavit filed before this Court dated 20th November, 2000 the relevant portion whereof has already been extracted hereinbefore, It is stated therein that some of the flats on 3rd to 5th floors allotted to the plaintiff are to be sold by the plaintiff as per Clause 3 of the power of attorney dated 2-4-1998 and the description of those flats was given in Exhibit C to the said affidavit. In that sense, it is conceded that till 20th November, 2000, when the affidavit was filed, the subject flats were not sold and were held by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. As mentioned earlier, Exhibit C filed along with the said affidavit gives the graphic description as to who was occupying the respective flat. In so far as Flat Nos. 301, 401 and 502 are concerned, against those flats, name of respondent Nos. 1 company has been shown, which means that it was the case of the said respondents that the company was in possession of the said flats till the filing of the said affidavit. Even going by the subsequent correspondence and the affidavits filed before this Court, the position as stated in the affidavit dated 20th November, 2000 is not disputed at all. However, the defence of the respondents is that till the filing of the said affidavits, the concerned respondents purchasers had not paid the requisite amount in terms of the agreement entered with them and it is only after filing of the said affidavit and before the order came to be passed by this Court on 2nd December, 2000, the amounts were received, consequent to which possession receipt was issued in favour of the concerned parties and they were put in possession of the respective flats. This theory introduced by the respondents in the subsequent affidavits will be examined in detail a little later. Suffice it to observe that till the order came to be passed by this Court on 2nd December, 2000, nothing has been brought on record even to remotely suggest that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had sold or were intending to sell the subject flats to any third party. It is in that backdrop this Court directed the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who are plaintiffs in the suit, to refrain from selling the unsold flats as on the date of passing of the order, which were shown in the name of the plaintiffs in the affidavit, on particular Exhibit C to the affidavit.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that at no stage, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 disclosed the fact that the subject flats were being or were intended to be transferred in favour of the third parties till the passing of the order dated 2nd December, 2000. That position is reinforced from the pleadings filed by the respective parties. However, to get over this position, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner society was fully aware about the transaction entered into with respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in relation to the subject flats and in fact the society also issued allotment letter in favour of the concerned persons as back as in May and July 1999, duly signed by the President and Honorary Secretary of the society. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that no such allotment letter has been issued at the instance of the society and there is no record to support the position stated on behalf of the respondents in this respect. Whereas, it is seen that neither there is any formal application by the concerned persons for being enrolled as member, nor compliance of necessary statutory requirement for enrolment as member has been complied with. Moreover, no resolution has been passed by the Managing Committee to admit the concerned persons as members and the record of the society does not support the claim of the said respondent. So long as the said persons were not admitted as members, the question of allotment of flats in their favour did not arise.
6. The petitioner has also questioned the document now produced before this Court for the first time, namely, the agreement for sale entered into by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the said flats. According to the petitioners, though the said agreement relates to the year 1999, the said agreement as well as the allotment letter which is pressed into service on behalf of the respondents has been created subsequently and is back-dated document only to justify the case of the respondents that the concerned flats were already sold out so as to wriggle out from the obligation flowing from the order sated 2nd December, 2000. The petitioner contends that the said documents have been created/fabricated by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and respondents Nos. 3 to 5 have abetted in commission of the said act, which is nothing but creating false evidence, which is being used in the proceedings before this Court, which, by itself, is an offence, and punishable under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code.
7. After analysing the relevant documents and pleadings as filed and find substance in the argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the said documents are back-dated documents and are fabricated, so as to sub-serve the ulterior design of the respondents. It is seen that admittedly no application has been made by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 for being enrolled as members of the petitioner society; nor is the case of the said respondents that such application has been made and not considered or pending before the society. Besides, it is categorically asserted on behalf of the petitioner society that no resolution has been passed by the Managing Committee of the petitionersociety to admit respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as members of the petitioner society. No such resolution has beer placed on record by the said respondents to support their stand that they have been admitted as members of the petitioner-society. Besides, no document has been produced by the respondents or entry in the books of the petitioner society that the payment, which was required to be made being the consideration of the respective flats, has been paid to the society. No details are forthcoming as to how, when and to whom the consideration of the flats has been paid. Neither the developer, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, have placed on record as to when the amount has been paid and the form and manner of payment made by the concerned respondents. What is further intriguing is that the allotment letters which are pressed into service on behalf of the respondents appear to be signed by the then President and Honorary Secretary, Shri Grover and Shri Kadam, respectively. The case of the petitioners is that signature of the said office bearers were obtained on blank allotment letters in anticipation that concerned flats will be allotted to Government allottees as they were required to be surrendered for U.L.C. purpose. Those signatures were given in good faith. Be that as it may, no affidavit of the then President, Shri Grover, or the then Honorary secretary, Shri Kadam, has been produced by the respondents to support their case that the said allotment letters were issued by the petitioner society under proper authority. Besides, what is interesting to note is that the day on which the allotment letters have been purportedly issued, on the same say, the agreements for sale in respect of the subject flats are stated to have been executed. However, the allotment letter is signed by the then president and Honorary Secretary, whereas the agreement for sale has been executed for and on behalf of the respondents by the constituted attorney of the Society, Shri Y.S. Karnik, respondent No. 2 herein. Assuming that such agreement was executed but the same has not been registered at all. It is not the case of the respondents that the same have been lodged for registration and registration is still awaited. As rightly contended on behalf of the petitioners, the agreement is only on Rs. 200/ - stamp paper. Moreover, as the said document is not registered, the same is inadmissible and will have to be impounded. The said agreement for sale is obviously a back-dated and fabricated document, which is also evident from the fact that the cost of flat is shown around Rs. 7 lakhs in respect of two flats and Rs. 4,45,000/- in respect of the third flat, but at the time of execution of the document only a paltry sum towards the society charges and the provisional credit of flats being Rs. 1060/-, Rs. 5260/- and Rs. 5260/- is stated to have been paid respectively; and the entire balance amount was to be paid only at the time of handing over possession of the concerned flats. This is indeed unknown to the practice prevalent in the market. Moreover, as the flats were already ready for occupation, the question of permitting the purchasers to pay the entire amount only at the time of delivery of possession seems to be improbable theory. What is further interesting to note is that the possession receipts in respect of the respective flats have been executed by respondent No, 2 herein and not by the office bearers of the petitioner society. As mentioned earlier, the possession receipts are purportedly executed in November, 2000. However, this fact was not disclosed to the Court when the order came to be passed on 2nd December, 2000. Another glaring infirmity in the agreements (xerox copies of the original), as produced before this Court reveals that the agreement in favour of Saroj Sen in respect of Flat No. 401 is not signed by any on behalf of the petitioner society nor by the office bearers of the petitioner society nor by the constituted attorney of respondent No. 2, as in the case of other two agreements in favour of Ulhas Varti and Sanjiv S. Sen. Moreover, there is no witness to the agreement entered with Ulhas Varti whereas only one common witness has attested signature on the agreements in favour of Sanjiv Sen and Saroj Sen, stated to be Mr. Ramesh S. Pradhan. However, no affidavit of that witness has been produced before this Court.
8. Taking overall view of the matter, I am more than convinced that the allotment letters and the three agreements for sale, which are pressed into service to justify the stand of the respondents, are fabricated and back-dated documents. These documents have been created only with a view to justify the defence that the said flats were already sold prior to 2nd December, 2000, so as to defy the injunction operating against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the said flats. In so far as respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are concerned, they have aided and abetted the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in fabrication of the subject documents, which documents, inspite of knowledge of being false, have been used in the proceedings before this Court, which act, by itself, is punishable under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code.
9. In so far as the plea that the contempt petition is barred by limitation is concerned, this submission is devoid of merits. It is seen that the factum of subject flats having been disposed of was asserted on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the first time in the affidavit dated 9th January, 2002 filed in Notice of Motion No. 3056 of 2001 in Suit No. 3014 of 2001; whereas till the passing of the order dated 2nd December, 2000, as well as even thereafter in the communication exchanged between the parties, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have maintained the position that the concerned flats were still held by them and were unsold. To get over this position, reliance was placed on the assertion made in the affidavit of Mr. Pilley dated 28th February, 2001 in Contempt Petition No. 97 of 1999 on the basis of which" the order came to be passed in the said contempt petition on 28th February, 2001. In that affidavit, it is stated by Mr. Pilley, the Chairman of the petitioner society, that all the flats on the ground, first and second floors of the said building and the rest of the F.S.I, is consumed and allotted by the society to its members and the same is occupied. Taking clue from this assertion, it was contended that the petitioner society had knowledge that even the subject flats have been sold out to the concerned purchasers. This submission deserves to be stated only to be rejected. Moreover, this submission clearly overlooks the subsequent affidavit filed by the said Mr. Pilley on 19th September, 2002 in Notice of Motion No. 3056 of 2001 in Suit No. 3014 of 2001. In para 11 of the said affidavit, the position stated in his earlier affidavit has been clarified and instead, it was stated that the case of the respondents that possession of the subject flats was handed over to the flat purchasers is absolutely false. In other words, the knowledge about the factum of transaction in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 is disclosed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the affidavit for the first time on 9th January, 2002. Viewed in this perspective, the contempt petition as filed on 7th August, 2002, will have to be held as within limitation.
10. The next argument canvassed on behalf of the respondents that the said Mr. Pilley had no authority to file the contempt petition also does not commend to me. Such technical plea cannot be taken serious note or in proceedings such as the present one, which is contempt action against respondents. It is well-settled that contempt action is essentially between the Court and the contemnor. In such proceedings the facts stated in the contempt petition is only to bring the issue to the notice of this Court and since the facts are glaring, the action will have to be taken to its logical and cannot be terminated on such technical ground that Mr. Pilley had no authority to file the contempt petition. In the present case, it is not only violation of the Court's order, but concerted effort has been made by the respondents to create false documents, so as to sub-serve their ulterior design to justify the breach of injunction operating against them.
11. That takes me to the next argument seriously canvassed on behalf of the respondents that the flats have already been allotted to the concerned members by the petitioner society. I have already accepted the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner that the allotment letter pressed into service is a fabricated document. Even the argument of the respondents that they had received payment only after the affidavit came to be filed before this Court on 20th November, 2000 and before the order was passed by this Court on 2nd December, 2000 will have to be stated to be rejected, being unsubstantiated. No evidence has been produced as to when such payment was received, in what form and from whom. The society has categorically denied of having received any payment from the concerned persons or the respondents herein. The theory of the respondents that before 2nd December, 2000, the subject flats have been transferred, is obviously an afterthought, only to justify the defiance of the orders passed by this Court on 2nd December, 2000.
12. Even the argument canvassed on behalf of the respondents that the present petition has been filed only to get rid of the proposed action of the Collector and the Urban Land Ceiling Department authorities does not commend to me. On the other hand, for the reasons already recorded, I am more than convinced that the respondents have conceded the position before 2nd December, 2000 that the subject flats were held by them and were unsold. However it is only after the injunction came to be granted on 2nd December, 2000; and more particularly, after the institution of the suit by the petitioner society in October, 2001 that the respondents have taken such plea which suits their convenience so as to avoid the liability and obligation arising under the order dated 2nd December, 2000.
13. At one stage, it was argued by the petitioner that the petitioner was willing to adduce evidence in respect of its stand that neither respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were members of the petitioner society, nor the petitioner society had ever entertained their applications for membership or admitted them as members as such or received any amount from them in that behalf. If it is so, the question of issuing letter of allotment in favour of such person would not arise. However, I am not inclined to call upon the parties to adduce evidence, because the materials on record are more than sufficient to draw inference which I have already drawn as recorded hereinbefore. Moreover, it is wellsettled that contempt action is a summary proceedings and in such action, the question of permitting the parties to adduce evidence does not arise. This legal position is expounded by the Privy Council, In Re. Pollard, L.R. 2 PC 106 at 120 and has been followed in India. It will be useful to refer to para 77 of the decision of the Apex Court in (C.K. Dhaphtary, in this behalf. Be that as it may, on taking totality of the circumstances into account, I am more than convinced that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have committed act of commission and omission, which amounts to having committed contempt of this Court and respondents Nos. 3 to 5 have aided and abetted in the commission of such act with knowledge, so as to defy the orders passed by this Court. Resultantly, all the respondents are held guilty of the act amounting to contempt of this Court, for which I now proceed to hear the Counsel appearing for the respective parties and the respondents in particular on the point of sentence.
14. As Counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 submits that his clients are not present in the Court; as well as Counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that even her client is not present in the Court, the matter is kept tomorrow, 17th August, 2004, at 2.45 p.m. to hear the respective respondents on the point of sentence. Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court and has taken notice that the matter will be heard tomorrow. Respondent No. 2 is also representing the cause of respondent No. 1, being its Managing Director.
15. Pursuant to directions issued yesterday, all the respondents are personally present in the Court today. They have been heard on the point of sentence through their Counsel. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have tendered unconditional apology and submit that they are in no way involved in any act, which results in committing contempt of this Court. Respondent No. 5 submits that he is a bona fide purchaser of the disputed property and there is no reason why respondent No. 5 should suffer for the act of commission or omission of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submit that even they are bona fide purchasers of the disputed flats. They further submit that they have complied with all the necessary requirements in good faith, because when the flat was purchased and amount paid by them, the relationship between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was cordial. However, as now relationship has been strained, grievance about the illegitimate sale in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 is being canvassed.
16. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the concerned respondents, on the point of sentence, in my opinion, the respondents having been held guilty of contempt of Court for not only violating the Court order, but also having come forward with a false case and tried to support the same by producing fabricated documents, coupled with the fact that no mitigating circumstance is brought on record, and the oral unconditional apology tendered on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is only doing lip service, and that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes with the due course of justice, I have no hesitation in taking the view that all the respondents should suffer imprisonment for a period of one month each and be required to pay fine quantified at Rs. 2,000/- each. In the circumstances, I proceed to pass the following order.
(a) The respondents are held guilty of commission of contempt of Court and are directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine quantified at Rs. ,2,000/- each, in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of two weeks.
(b) The respondents are directed to submit original agreements, zerox copies whereof are presented before this Court in support of their defence that the concerned flats have been disposed of in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 5. The original agreements be deposited with the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court within two weeks from today and on such deposit, the same be impounded and proceeded in accordance with law.
(c) In view of the above, the show cause notices issued to the contemnors are made absolute and the contempt petition is allowed on the above terms. It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner society to take recourse to any other appropriate remedy against the respondents individually or collectively as may be permissible by law.
17. At this stage, Counsel appearing for the respondents pray that the operation of this order be stayed to enable the respondents to take the matter in appeal. The request being reasonable, operation of this order is stayed for a period of ten weeks from today on condition that the respondents will give undertaking in this Court that they shall not create third parry rights in the disputed property till such and further orders to be passed by this Court.