Delhi High Court
Montreaus Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Ascot Hotels & Resorts Ltd. & Ors. on 15 November, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 11th November, 2010
Date of Order: November 15, 2010
+ Crl. MA 17949 of 2010 in Cont. Cas(C) No.677/2010
% 15.11.2010
Montreaus Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
ASCOT Hotels & Resorts Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsels:
Mr. Vijay Aggarwal for petitioner/applicant
Mr. V.N. Sharma for respondent.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose of the present application under Section 151 CPC
read with Order 39 Rule 2 and 2A CPC made by the applicant/ petitioner in a contempt
petition seeking directions against the respondents from continuing the contempt on a
repetitive basis.
2. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of
the order dated 28th August 2007 passed by learned Company Law Board. The said
order reads as under:
"Heard on interim prayers. I record the statement of the Sr.
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent that without prejudice to the
Cont. Cas© No.677/2010 Page 1 Of 4
arbitration clause, the status quo as on date would be maintained
in regard to the lands of the Company as also to the lands referred
to in interim prayer(ix) of the application till the next date of
hearing."
3. The above order would show that the parties were directed to maintain status quo
in respect of land of the company as also in respect of land referred to in interim prayer
(ix) of the application. Prayer (ix) of the application reads as under: -
"(ix) pass ex-parte ad-interim order restraining the
Respondents, especially Respondent no.5, from carrying out any
development construction or other activity on land ad measuring
21 bighas 10 biswas in Village Mashobra contracted to be
purchased by it on 12.1.2006 from Shri Prem Singh and his wife
Smt. Kaushalya Devi, Respondent Nos. 12 and 13."
4. Thus, the above order dated 22nd August 2007 was operative in respect of 21
Bighas 10 Biswas of land in Village Mashobra purchased from Shri Prem Singh and his
wife Smt. Kaushalya Devi.
5. Status quo in respect of land means the parties should not disturb the factual
situation in respect of title and possession of land and the construction over the land as it
existed on the date of passing of the order. That implies that no part of the land should be
sold or parted possession with and no construction over the land should be carried out
and no structure should be put up. The contention of the petitioner is that respondents
had sought permission from state government in respect of development activities over
the said land and the same was granted by the State Government, and there was every
likelihood that now the respondents would start development activities over the land as
per plan approved by State Government. It is submitted that even seeking of permission
from the state government amounts to violation of order of CLB.
Cont. Cas© No.677/2010 Page 2 Of 4
6. It is apparent that vide order dated 22nd August 2007 the CLB had not granted
prayer (ix) to the applicant/petitioner. The CLB in its order only directed status quo in
respect of land mentioned in prayer (ix). Therefore, the order of CLB is that the
respondents shall not disturb status quo as explained above, nothing more nothing less.
7. I have heard counsel for both sides. The contention of respondents is that this
Court cannot issue any further directions in respect of land as the Court was dealing with
contempt petition and the Contempt of Courts Act does not provide for grant of any
interim injunction. Reliance is placed by respondents on V.M. Manohar Prasad v N.
Ratnam Raju and another (2004) 12 SCC 610. On the other hand, the counsel for
petitioner relied upon DDA v Skipper Construction Co.(P) Ltd. and another 1996 (4) SCC
622 and All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh & Ors. 2007
(11) SCC 374 wherein Apex Court specifically observed that it was the duty of the Court
to set right the wrong done in disobedience of a restrain order and not to allow
perpetuation of the wrong doing. Such power is available under Section 151 CPC and is
bound to be exercised in the interest of justice and in public interest.
8. I consider that in view of the judgment in All Bengal Excise Licensees Association
v. Raghabendra Singh & Ors (supra), this Court is not powerless in passing an order so
as to see that a violation of interim injunction does not continue.
9. The contention of the petitioner is that he had applied for RTI query from HP Govt.
and the documents furnished by the HP Govt. to him under RTI Act shows that the
respondents were proceedings with their scheme with development of this land as part of
intending hotel in gross violation of the status quo order and they have obtained
permission from HP Govt. for construction of resort and luxury hotels over the said land.
Cont. Cas© No.677/2010 Page 3 Of 4
He submits that while as per MOU, the luxury hotel was to be developed only on 30,000
sq. ft. but the respondents are intending to construct hotel over 1.31 lac sq ft. it is
submitted that respondent be restrained from committing any contempt and they should
be directed to maintain status quo.
10. There was no direction issue by CLB against the parties from corresponding with
the government authorities seeking permission/licenses/sanctions in respect of the said
land. The directions given by CLB were to maintain status quo and as already observed
by this Court this implied that no construction activities and no parting with the
possession of said land and no transfer of title should be there. There is no bar on parties
in corresponding with authorities and seeking licenses/permissions/ approvals of projects
from government in anticipation of succeeding in the litigation. However, it is directed
that respondents during pendency of this petition shall not undertake any development
activities over the land and shall not part with possession of the land to any third party
and shall not transfer title of the land in question to any third party. Obtaining permission
by respondents is at their own risk and costs as for that, there was no injunction granted
by CLB. However it is made clear that if construction activities are done and status quo is
altered, the respondents shall be liable to restore the status of the land as it existed on
the date of grant of injunction, at their costs and if it is not done by the respondents and a
violation is undertaken by the respondents, the court shall be constrained to restore the
position of the land in question as it existed on the date of status quo through Court
Commissioner.
11. With above directions, the present application stands disposed of.
November 15, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Cont. Cas© No.677/2010 Page 4 Of 4
