Sh.Vijay Pandit vs M/S.Gr Investments India Pvt Ltd & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1200 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 CCP No.132/2008 in CS(OS) No.214/2002

%                      Date of Decision: 06.04.2009

Sh.Vijay Pandit                                      .... Petitioners
                      Through Mr.Vikas Sharma, Advocate

                                 Versus

M/s.GR Investments India Pvt Ltd & Anr                  .... Respondents
                    Through Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                   NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in               NO
     the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. This is a petition under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of

Courts Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for

initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for disobeying

and disregarding the order dated 8th August, 2005 and for violating the

alleged undertaking given to the Court and for violating the terms of the

family settlement dated 16th July, 2005.

2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking

restraint against the defendant company from evicting the plaintiffs

from second floor of the property bearing No.D-178, Defence Colony,

New Delhi and from obstructing their ingress and egress to the said

property. Smt. Nutan Pandit, alleged contemnor, is stated to be Director

of the defendant company and is also the wife of plaintiff No.1.

3. The disputes regarding the divorce and other proceedings were

also pending between Smt.Nutan Pandit, Director of defendant company

and the plaintiff. A settlement was arrived at between the plaintiff and

the defendants pursuant to which a joint application dated 5th July,

2005 supported by the affidavits of Sh.Vijay Pandit, plaintiff and

Smt.Nutan Pandit, Director of the defendant company was filed.

4. On the application of the parties, the statement of Sh.Vijay Pandit

and Smt.Nutan Pandit were recorded who had stated that they have

signed the settlement after reading and understanding the same and

the joint application incorporating the terms of settlement is signed by

them. No undertaking was given by them to the Court nor any

undertaking was accepted by the Court.

5. On the basis of their joint application the Court had passed the

following order:-

" The parties have filed his application contending that they have settled the suit in terms of settlement arrived at between them and the plaintiff prays for withdrawal of the suit in terms of the settlement arrived at. The settlement is incorporated in Annexure `A' annexed with the application.

The Counsel for the parties stated that the settlement is signed by the parties. The application for compromise also includes the terms of settlement. Application is signed

by the parties and is also supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff and the affidavit of the director of the defendant, Mrs. Nutan Pandit. The application is marked as `Exhibit P- 1'.

The counsel states that the party shall be bound by the terms and settlement as incorporated in application which is exhibited `P-1'.

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the plaintiff is allowed to withdraw the suit in terms of settlement set out in the application leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

The suit is disposed of."

6. Therefore, pursuant to the settlement between the parties the

plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the suit in terms of the settlement

leaving the parties to bear their own cost and no decree was passed as

it was not prayed by the plaintiff and defendant that a decree in terms

of the settlement be passed.

7. The petitioner is now aggrieved by a suit for declaration filed by

Smt.Nutan Pandit to the effect that the settlement dated 16th July, 2005

entered between the parties be declared null and void because her

consent was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. According to the

petitioner the respondent Smt.Nutan Pandit cannot claim that the part

of the settlement is valid and other part of the settlement is not valid as

her consent has been allegedly obtained by misrepresentation and

fraud.

8. According to the petitioner since the respondent is violating the

terms of settlement and a false and frivolous case has been filed by the

respondent against the petitioner, therefore, the respondent has

committed contempt of this Court and proceedings be initiated for

committing contempt of this Court against the respondent.

9. The application is contested by the respondent contending that

the application is an abuse of process of law. It is contended that the

respondent is within her right to enforce her right when the settlement

dated 16th July, 2005 was got executed from her on account of

misrepresentation and fraud and, therefore, filing a suit for declaration

regarding the alleged settlement dated 16th July, 2005, is not a willful

and deliberate violation of any of the orders passed by this Court and

cannot tantamount to committing contempt of the Court.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A settlement

dated 16th July, 2005 was arrived at between the parties and on the

basis of the said settlement the suit for injunction was withdrawn by

the plaintiff. While withdrawing the plaint, pursuant to a joint

application, the plaintiff had not sought for passing a decree in terms of

the settlement arrived at between the parties. No undertaking had been

given to the Court nor has any undertaking been accepted by the Court

that the respondent, Smt.Nutan Pandit will not be entitled to challenge

the settlement dated 16th July, 2005 on any grounds.

11. The respondent has filed a suit challenging the settlement dated

16th July, 2005 contending inter-alia that the settlement was arrived at

on account of misrepresentation and fraud committed on her.

12. If the petitioner wants to invoke her civil rights seeking that the

settlement arrived at with her was on account of misrepresentation and

fraud, the same cannot be a ground for initiating Contempt of Court

proceedings against the respondent. The learned counsel for the

petitioner has vehemently argued that part of the settlement cannot be

valid while other part not suitable to the respondent is being challenged

by her as being void on account of misrepresentation and fraud. The

respondent had also stated before withdrawal of the suit that the

settlement was signed by her and she had also given an affidavit in

support of the joint application filed for the withdrawal of the suit.

13. These are the grounds the petitioner may take in contesting the

suit filed by the respondent, however, in the present facts and

circumstances it does not tantamount to willful and intentional

violation of the order dated 8th August, 2005 by which the plaintiff was

permitted to withdraw the suit on account of settlement arrived at

between the parties.

14. Exercise of power under Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 is

comparatively a rarity and has to be used sparingly and in the larger

interest of society and for proper administration of justice. Mere

disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a " Civil

Contempt" within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1971. The

element of willingness and intention is an indispensable requirement to

take action. If two interpretations are possible as to the action of alleged

contemnor and one of such interpretations raises doubts about the

willful nature of his conduct, contempt will not be made out. The

Supreme Court of India in the case Perspective Publications (Pvt.) Ltd.

v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 221) has observed at page 230,

inter alia thus:

"The summary jurisdiction by way of contempt must be exercised with great care and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for the proper administration of law and justice." (Per Grover, J.) Contempt of Court is essentially a matter which concerns the administration of justice and the dignity and authority of judicial Tribunals. It is not a right of a party to be invoked for the redress of his grievances. It is not also a mode by which the rights of a party, adjudicated upon by a Tribunal can be enforced against another party. Moreover, if the matter, as in the present case, requires a detailed inquiry, it must be left to the Court which passed the order and which presumably is fully acquainted with the subject-matter of its own order. When the matter relates to mere infringement of an order, as between parties, it is clearly inexpedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction as a mode of executing the order, merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for what essentially brings the administration of justice into contempt or unduly weakens it (vide (1964) 68 Cal WN 148, AIR 1951 Pat 231, AIR 1966 Mad 21 and AIR 1971 ALL 231).

Having carefully considered the allegations made in the contempt

petition, it is apparent that the action of the respondent does not fall

within the ambit of Contempt of Courts Act. No undertaking was given

to or accepted by the Court. Filing a suit seeking a declaration that the

compromise arrived at with her was on account of misrepresentation

and fraud will not be ground for initiating the Contempt of Court

proceedings against the respondent. The grounds raised by the

petitioner may be good ground for dismissal of the suit filed by the

respondent, however, no grounds have been made out for initiating

Contempt of Court proceedings against the respondent. The petition in

the facts and circumstances is misconceived and it is, therefore,

dismissed. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged and the

parties are left to be bear their costs.

APRIL 06, 2009                              ANIL KUMAR, J.
"K"