Delhi High Court
M/S Star India Private Ltd. vs Madhur Mittal on 28 November, 2011
Author: Manmohan Singh
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 28.11.2011
+ CCP No.84/2009 in CS (OS) No.90/2009
M/S STAR INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ..... Applicant
Through Mr. Nitin Sharma, Adv.
versus
MADHUR MITTAL ..... Respondent
Through Mr. J.P.Sengh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sanjay S. Chhabra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The plaintiff in suit has filed the present contempt petition for the
reason that the suit filed by the plaintiff against M/s Triveni Media Limited
which was settled between the parties on 05.02.2009 by passing the decree
for permanent injunction, but the defendant/contemnor did not comply the
terms and conditions of the settlement mentioned in para No.3 of the
contempt petition and also did not comply with the undertaking tendered
before the Court.
2. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/
defendant has raised a preliminary objection that the contempt petition filed
by the applicant/plaintiff is not maintainable, as the suit has already been
CCP No.84/2009 in CS(OS) No.90/2009 Page No.1 of 3
disposed of. His contention is that in any case, if there is a violation of the
decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, the remedy only lies under the
provisions of Order XXI, Rule 32 CPC. In support of his submissions, the
learned Senior counsel has referred the following judgments:-
(i) Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Amritpal Singh Nayar & Anr.,
reported in 100 (2002) Delhi Law Times 278.
(ii) Babu Ram Gupta Vs. Sudhir Bhasin and another, reported
in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1528.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff has
submitted that since the terms and conditions of the decree have not been
complied with, the plaintiff is entitled to file the contempt petition for
compliance of the said clauses in the main suit. In support of his
submission, the learned counsel has referred the judgment passed in the
case of Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang & Anr., reported in AIR 2006
Supreme Court 1883.
4. It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent has filed the
reply-cum-affidavit to the contempt petition. In para No.5 of his affidavit,
the respondent Mr. Madhur Mittal has specifically stated that he was not
responsible for taking out the said publicity material relied upon by the
applicant. It was an act committed by the new Management under the
supervision of Mr. Amit Sinha. It was also stated therein that in any case, if
any omission or commission was committed by Mr. Amit Sinha including
default/breach of the agreement for purchase of 100% equity of the
defendant-company, there have been no continuous business activities in
the defendant-company since June, 2009. In paragraph-8 of the said
CCP No.84/2009 in CS(OS) No.90/2009 Page No.2 of 3
affidavit, the deponent tenders an unqualified and unconditional apology to
this Court for any unintentional breach/disobedience if committed by him.
The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has also
made a statement at bar that the respondent has no intention to violate the
decree passed by this Court and in future they will see that none of the
terms is breached by the respondent.
5. Without going into any controversy, as to whether the present
petition is maintainable or not, since the above said affidavit has been filed
by the respondent which is acceptable to the learned counsel for the
applicant, the present contempt petition is accordingly disposed of in view
of the statement made thereunder.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
NOVEMBER 28, 2011/ka
CCP No.84/2009 in CS(OS) No.90/2009 Page No.3 of 3
