Asa Agencies (P) Ltd. vs M/S Delhi Auto & General Finance ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 4603 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


CCP No. 7/2010 in CP No. 169/2006


ASA Agencies (P) Ltd.                                ..... Petitioner

                   Through    Mr. Santosh Kr. Adv.

     versus


Shri G. Sagar Suri & Ors.                       ..... Respondent

                   Through    Mr. Girdhar Gobind for R-1to 4
                              Mr. Anil Gupta for R-5 to 8
                              Mr. D.K. Garg for R-7

ORDER:

For order see CCP No. 13/2009 in CP No. 169/2006

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J August 6 , 2012

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CCP No. 13/2009 in CP No. 169/2006

Judgment delivered on: 6th August, 2012

ASA Agencies (P) Ltd. ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Santosh Kr. Adv.

            versus


M/s Delhi Auto and General Finance Pvt. Ltd.               ..... Respondent

                   Through     Mr. Girdhar Gobind for R-1to 4
                               Mr. Anil Gupta for R-5 to 8
                               Mr. D.K. Garg for R-7



                               AND



CCP No. 7/2010 in CP No. 169/2006


ASA Agencies (P) Ltd.                                 ..... Petitioner

                   Through     Mr. Santosh Kr. Adv.

     versus





 Shri G. Sagar Suri & Ors.                       ..... Respondent

                   Through    Mr. Girdhar Gobind for R-1to 4
                              Mr. Anil Gupta for R-5 to 8
                              Mr. D.K. Garg for R-7

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

By this order I propose to dispose of the two contempt petitions

filed by the petitioner under Section 542 of the Companies Act, 1956

read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and Section 12

of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The case of the petitioner in CCP

No. 13/2009 is that the petitioner has filed the winding up petition

against the respondent company under Section 433(e) & (f) of the

Companies Act, 1956 and in the said company petition, vide order

dated 15.9.2006, the respondent company was restrained from

disposing of or parting with and/or renting out any immovable

property except with the permission of this Court. As per the

petitioner, the said order was extended by this Court from time to

time and the same still subsists. It is also the case of the petitioner

that at the time of filing of the petition an amount of Rs. 9,60,53,750/-

was outstanding against the respondent, which includes the principal

loan amount of Rs. 5,75,00,000/- and interest amount of Rs.

3,85,53,750/- due for the period 3.9.2002 to 24.5.2006. It is also the

case of the petitioner that since the respondent company had failed to

pay the said outstanding dues despite service of demand notice dated

25.5.2006 under Section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956,

therefore, the petitioner had filed a winding up petition. The

petitioner has also claimed that during the pendency of the present

winding up proceedings, in order to defeat the legal rights of the

creditors including the applicant/petitioner the respondent company

and its Directors namely Mr.G. Sagar Suri, Mr. Ujwal Suri and Mr.

Narender Suri had sold their huge chunk of land in favour of M/s

Amba Realtors Pvt. Ltd., M/s Nipun Builders & Developers and M/s

S.R.K. Realtors Pvt. Ltd. through various sale deeds. The petitioner

has given the details of such properties, which are as under:-

i. 8500 sq.meters of residential land situated at village

Mohiuddinpur Kanawani, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh

Nagar (UP) sold in favour of M/s Nipun Builders & Brothers,

501, Nipun tower, Plot No. 15, Community Centre,

Karkardooma, Delhi - 110092/Contemnor No. 7 on 9.11.2006

through a registered sale deed.

ii. 2947 square meters of residential land situated at village

Mohiuddinpur Kanawani, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh

Nagar (UP) sold in favour of M/s Amba Realtors Pvt. Ltd., 279,

AGCR Enclave, Delhi - 110092/ Contemnor No. 6 on 20.08.2008

vide registered sale deed.

iii. 2469 square meters of residential land situated at Village

Mohiuddinpur Kanawani, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh

Nagar (UP) sold in favour of M/s Amba Realtors Pvt. Ltd., 279,

AGCR Enclave, Delhi - 110092/ Contemnor No. 6 on 20.08.2008

vide registered sale deed.

iv. 1 ¼ acres of agricultural land situated at Village Arthala, Tehsil

and District Ghaziabad sold in favour of M/s S.R.K. Realtors (P)

Ltd., 270, AGCR Enclave, Delhi - 110092/Contemnor No. 8 on

02.01.2009 vide registered sale deed.

It is also contended by the petitioner that the aforesaid

properties have been sold by the Respondents No. 1 to 4 in violation

of the interim order dated 15.9.2006 passed by this Court in the

winding up petition despite being fully aware of the said interim

order. The petitioner further contended that sale of the said

properties by the respondents no. 1 to 4 clearly constitute willful

disobedience of the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by this Court and

all the contemnors are liable to be punished by this Court for their

contemptuous acts.

In CCP 7/2010, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt

proceedings against the respondents therein for selling huge land by

respondents No.1 to 4 in favour of respondents No. 5 and 6 in terms

of sale deed dated 26.2.2008 and 16.4.2008 in defiance of the same

interim order dated 15.9.2006. In both the contempt petitions, the

petitioner has prayed for punishment, of all the contemnors, for their

willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 15.9.2006 in terms

of Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The

petitioner has also prayed for declaring the said sale transactions as

illegal and nullity. The petitioner has also prayed for awarding a

separate punishment to respondents No. 1 to 4 for running the

business in a fraudulent manner in terms of Section 542 of the

Companies Act,1956.

Separate replies have been filed by the respondents to

these contempt petitions and thereafter, the respective rejoinders

were filed to these replies by the Petitioner.

Mr. Santosh Kumar, the learned counsel representing the

petitioner submitted that on the date of the filing of the winding up

petition an amount of Rs. 9,60,53,750/- was due and outstanding

against respondent No. 4 company but instead of liquidating their

entire outstanding liability, respondent No. 4 came forward to pay an

amount of Rs. 5.75 crores, which amount was accepted by the

petitioner without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The

counsel further argued that in terms of the loan agreement, the

respondents No. 1 to 4 are liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum as

the same being the contractual rate of interest agreed between the

parties. The counsel further submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4

cannot avoid the said liability of paying interest at an already

consented rate. The counsel further submitted that as per the settled

legal position the payment of Rs. 5.75 crores made by the respondent

Nos. 1 to 4 has to be first adjusted against the interest amount, and

not against the principal amount, therefore, respondents No. 1 to 4

cannot take a plea that they had already made the payment to the

petitioner towards the principal amount. The counsel further argued

that under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 this Court can

exercise the discretion to order interest at such rate as the Court may

deem reasonable on the principal sum adjudged and the principal sum

would be the sum which would include the amount of the interest

which was over due as on the date of the filing of the suit. The

contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that so far the pre

suit interest is concerned, the Court cannot interfere with the rate of

interest as was agreed between the parties but can adjudge the rate

of interest, which the Court may deem reasonable, from the date of

the filing of the suit till realization of the same, in the exercise of

discretionary power conferred under Section 34 of the CPC, 1908. The

counsel further argued that the loan advanced by the petitioner was not in

the nature of personal or friendly loan to the respondent but the said loan

advanced by the petitioner was a commercial loan on which the respondents

are liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum. Counsel also argued that both

the contempt petitions filed by the petitioner are within the period of

limitation, as the same were filed by the petitioner within a period of

one year from the date of knowledge of the execution of the sale

deeds by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of various buyers. The

counsel further argued that the Respondents no.1 to 4 in both the

contempt petitions willfully and contemptuously violated and flouted

the said interim order dated 15.9.2006 by selling their huge land in

favour of the respective buyers through various sale deeds without

taking any leave of the Court. The counsel thus urged

that severe punishment be awarded to all these contemnors for

committing contempt of this Court. The counsel also urged that all

these sale deeds as were executed by the respondent No.1 to 4 in

favour of other contemnors be declared null and void.

In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance on the following judgments:-

1) Surjit Singh & Others v.Harbans Singh & Others (1995)

6 SCC 50

2) Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku AIR 1994 SC

3) Meghraj &Others v. Mst.Bayabai & Others 1969(2) SCC

4) Industrial Credit & Development Syndicate now called

ICDS Ltd. v. SmithabenH. Patel (Smt. &others (1999) 3

SCC 80

Before concluding his arguments, Mr.Santosh Kumar,

counsel representing the petitioner did not press the reliefs under

Section 542 of the Contempt Act and submitted that the present

contempt petitions filed by the petitioner be treated under Section 10

& 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the

Constitution of India.

Opposing the present petitions, Mr. Girdhar Govind,

counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 at the outset submitted

that the petitioner has no locus standi to file these petitions as the

petitioner has no existence in the eyes of law, after the amalgamation

of the petitioner company with M/s Avanta Realty Ltd. The contention

raised by the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was that the

petitioner has not taken any steps to place on record the scheme of

amalgamation and their prospective rights, if any, derived by the new

company for prosecuting the present contempt proceedings. The

counsel further argued that a friendly loan was advanced by the

petitioner in favour of respondents No 4 with a view to bring the

company out of the financial crises and with the mutual

understanding of the parties rate of Interest was agreed at 6% p.a.

Counsel further argued that a settlement had arrived at between the

parties and in terms of the settlement, the respondents no. 1 to 4 had

paid an amount of Rs. 5.75 crores towards the principal outstanding

amount and only dispute left between the parties was the payment of

interest for which the respondents have been giving various proposals

to the petitioner showing their willingness to pay reasonable rate of

interest from the date of the filing of the suit till the payment of the

said principal amount. The learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4

also submitted that even as on date these respondents are willing to

pay interest @ 6% per annum on the said outstanding amount from

the date of the filing of the said petition till its final disposal or any

other rate of interest as this Court may deem just and reasonable in

the circumstances of the case. The counsel also argued that the

petitioner cannot maintain a combined application i.e. under Section

542 of the Companies Act,1956 along with Contempt petition under

Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act,1971 as the

parameters for invoking both the said provisions are different.

Counsel further contended that the contempt petitions filed by the

petitioner are also not maintainable as the same are not filed by the

petitioner within the prescribed period of limitation of one year as the

interim order was passed by this Court on 15.9.2006 while the said

sale deeds were executed by the respondents much after the lapse of

period of one year from the date of the interim order. Counsel further

argued that the respondents have already tendered unqualified

apology for not taking the leave of the Court before selling their

properties in favour of the various buyers. Counsel also submitted that

such sales were necessary to bring out the respondents from the

financial crises and even an amount of Rs. 5.75 crores was paid by

these respondents out of the sale proceeds of the said properties. In

support of his arguments counsel for the respondent 1to 4 placed

reliance on the following judgments:-

1) Anup Bhushan Vohra v. Registrar General,High Court of

Judicature at Calcutta 2011Lawsuit (SC) 1010

2) Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC

Arguing for the respondent No.7 in CCP No.13/09 Mr. D.K. Garg,

Ld. Counsel argued that the respondent no.7 was never aware of the

said interim order dated 15.9.2006 passed by this Court. Counsel

further submitted that in fact the respondent No.7 had purchased the

property being subject matter of sale deed dated 9.11.2006 vide

registered sale agreement dated 4.8.2006 and, therefore, it cannot be

said that the said sale in favour of the respondent No.7 is in violation

of the Court order dated 15.9.2006. It was further argued that under

the said agreement to sell, the transaction was to be completed within

a period of 100 days and accordingly the sale deed was executed on

9.11.2006 after the respondent no.1 had completed their part of the

obligation, arising out of the registered agreement to sell dated

4.8.2006. Counsel further submitted that respondent No. 7 had

further sold the said property in favour of respondents No.10 and 11

vide sale deed dated 22nd April, 2009; and no action was initiated by

the petitioner against respondent No. 7 at any stage prior to the

execution of the sale deed dated 22 nd April, 2009. Counsel also argued

that the present petition filed by the petitioner is clearly barred by

limitation. Counsel also submitted that in the event of this Court

taking a view against the respondents No.1 to 4 holding them guilty of

contempt yet respondent No. 7, who was a bona fide purchaser of the

property in question, cannot be held guilty of committing any

contempt. The counsel also submitted that even in such like case, the

Court will not declare such a sale as nullity as any such order will not

benefit either of the parties and nor even the petitioner. In support of

his arguments counsel for the respondent No.7 placed reliance on the

case A.K. Chatterjee v. Ashok Kumar Chatterjee reported in 156

(2009) DLT 475, where it has been held that the act of execution of

sale deed in violation of interim order of this court in a case, should

be of such a nature as to be an impediment in the decision of the suit

or grant of a decree as claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the

knowledge of the applicants thereof is not relevant for the purposes of

deciding against the subsequent purchaser, is such subsequent

purchaser is for value and has acted in good faith and without notice

of the original Contract between the parties.

Adopting the same arguments, Mr. Anil Gupta, Ld. counsel

representing Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 8 in addition also submitted that

the petitioner had not taken any care to inform the Revenue

Authorities about the said restraint order passed by this Court and

had the petitioner been diligent in this regard then these respondents

would not have purchased the said properties/plots forming subject

matter of sale deeds dated 26.2.2008 and 16.4.2008.

I have heard Learned Counsels for the parties and given

my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by them.

The contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature

and any willful and intentional disobedience of an order of the court

will certainly make a person liable for contempt. It is a trite law that

the contempt jurisdiction has to be exercised with great care,

caution and circumspection and it will not be invoked where the

order passed by the court is not complied with by mistake,

inadvertence or by misunderstanding or where the disobedience is

merely accidental. However, where the court is satisfied after holding

a summary enquiry that not only the party has disobeyed the order of

the court but such disobedience on the part of the party is willful and

deliberate, then the power of contempt has to be exercised by the

court to ensure that the dignity of the court and the majesty of law is

maintained.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position, I will

proceed to examine the core issue viz. whether the respondents have

committed contempt of this court by willfully disobeying the order

dated 15.9.2006. The case of the petitioner in both the contempt

petitions in nutshell is that the petitioner had filed a winding up

petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 against the

respondent no. 4 company as the respondent no 4 had failed to repay

the loan amount of Rs.5,75,00,000/- along with interest @18% p.a.,

despite service of demand notice dated 25.5.2006 and in the said

company petition, vide order dated 15.9.2006 this court restrained

the respondent no 4 company from disposing of or parting with

and/or renting out any immovable property except with the

permission of this court. Since the said interim order is at the heart

of the controversy, therefore, the same is reproduced as under:

"15.09.2006 Present: Mr. D.K. Malhotra & Mr. Rakesh Malhotra for the petitioner.

Mr. Girdhar Govind for the respondent.

At the request of the respondent, five weeks time is granted to file reply. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. In the meanwhile, the respondent is permitted to carry on business in its normal course. However, the respondent will not dispose of, part with or/and rent out any immovable property except with the permission of this court".

As can be seen from the above, the said order was passed

by the company court in the presence of the counsel representing the

respondent No.4 company and therefore the respondent nos.1 to 3

being the Directors of respondent no.4 were well aware of the said

interim restraint order passed by the company court. It is quite

apparent from the proceedings in the main petition that the

respondent had been seeking adjournment on various occasions. The

process of settlement between the parties can be seen to have begun

from 26.3.2007 as the order passed on the said date by the company

court records the request of the counsel for the respondent who

stated that there is likelihood of meeting the liability of the petitioner

which could not be finalized on account of non-availability of one of

the Directors. Taking note of the said request made by the counsel

for the respondent, the learned Company Judge adjourned the

matter for 17.4.2007 with the observation that in case the matter is

not settled, then the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 will

have to address the arguments. Then on 17.4.2007, the learned

counsel for the respondent no.4 had given 16 cheques to the learned

counsel for the petitioner and out of the said 16 cheques, one of the

cheque was for Rs.50 lacs while the remaining 15 cheques for an

amount of Rs.35 lacs each bearing different dates of each succeeding

months. The said cheques were accepted by the counsel for the

petitioner but without prejudice to the rights and claims of the

petitioner. It is not in dispute that the total amount of the 16

cheques comes out to be Rs.5,75,00,000/- and the principal amount

which was outstanding against the respondent company was also

exactly the same amount. It is also an undeniable fact that all the

sale deeds forming subject matter of both the contempt petitions,

were executed by the respondent No.1 to 4 during the subsistence of

the said order dated 15.9.2006. The only distinction which has been

drawn out by Mr. Garg, counsel representing the respondent No.7,

is in respect of the sale deed dated 9.11.2006 which is based on the

registered agreement to sell dated 4.8.2006. The contention raised

by the counsel was that the said agreement to sell was executed

prior to the grant of the said injunction order dated 15.9.2006. The

stand taken by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 in reply to both the said

contempt petitions is that the sale transactions which took place

were not in any manner intentional so as to violate the interim order

dated 15.9.2006 but to clear off the liability of the respondent No.4.

This court vide order dated 15.9.2006 gave a clear mandate to

the respondent no.4 to seek permission of the court before entering

into any sale transaction but the respondents no.1 to 4 in utter

disregard and blatant defiance of the said injunction order kept on

selling its lands to various buyers who are also now facing the brunt

of contumacious and contemptuous conduct of the respondents no. 1

to 4. Undoubtedly, the respondents no. 1 to 4 could have

approached this court to seek leave for the sale of its properties if

at all the respondents no. 1 to 4 felt the necessity of paying off their

financial liabilities towards various creditors, but in any case, these

respondents could not have sold their properties in violation of the

said stay order granted by this court. The respondents no. 1 to 4 by

selling the said properties have clearly disobeyed the said injunction

order dated 15.9.2006 passed by this court and therefore, the

respondent no.4 and its Directors are held guilty of committing

contempt of this court.

The other controversy raised in this contempt petition is

as to whether the amount of Rs.5,75,00,000/- paid by the respondent

should be adjusted against the principal amount or the same should

be first adjusted against the interest amount leaving the principal

amount as outstanding. To support the argument that the said

amount should be first adjusted against the interest, counsel for

petitioner has placed reliance on I.C. D.S. Ltd. Vs. Smithaben H.

Patel(Smt.) & Ors.(1999) 3 SCC 80. The legal position as canvassed

by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be disputed as in the

absence of any agreement, any payment made by the creditors has

to be first adjusted against the amount of interest and then against

the principal amount. Having said this, this court can hardly believe

that no settlement talks had taken place between the parties and the

respondent had made payment of Rs.5,75,00,000/- without there

being any understanding. It is not fathomable that the respondent

would make the payment of amount which is exactly equivalent to the

principal amount as has been claimed by the petitioner in the winding

up petition. It is thus quite evident that the petitioner and the

respondent had arrived at some understanding that the said

payment of Rs. 5,75,00,000/- was being made by the respondent

towards the principal amount and it is because of this very reason

that the order dated 29.1.2009 records the submission of the counsel

for the respondent that the only dispute left between the parties is

with regard to the payment of the interest and which contention of

the counsel for the respondent was not refuted by the counsel for the

petitioner. The petitioner has claimed interest @18% p.a. on the said

outstanding principal amount and as per the settled legal position the

respondent cannot claim any concession in the rate of interest

which was agreed between the parties so far the pre suit period is

concerned. As per the petitioner an amount of Rs.3,85,53,75.00

was outstanding against the respondent towards interest calculated

@18% p.a. for the pre-suit period and as per the stand taken by the

respondents no. 1 to 4 this court can exercise the discretion to

reduce the interest rate even for the pre-suit period. So far the pre-

suit interest is concerned, I find in the addendum to the loan

agreement dated 29.8.2002 the respondent no. 4 company had duly

agreed to pay interest @ of 18% p.a. on the loan amount and

therefore the respondents no. 1 to 4 cannot escape from their liability

from paying the said rate of interest so far pre-suit period is

concerned. However, so far pendente lite and future interest is

concerned certainly this court can exercise its discretion under

Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. During the course of

arguments, Mr. Girdhar Govind counsel for the respondent has given

an offer of paying the amount towards the interest if the same is

awarded from the date of filing of the petition after adjusting the

amount which is already paid by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The

counsel also urged that a reasonable rate of interest may be fixed

somewhere between 6% p.a.to 9%p.a. and in any case not @18% p.a.

The counsel further submitted that the respondent will liquidate its

entire liability maximum within a period of three months. The

respondent in their reply has also tendered unqualified apology for

having entered into such sale transactions. The counsel for the

respondents 1 to 4 has taken a stand that in the event of this court

taking a view to hold the respondent no.4 and its Directors guilty of

contempt, then unconditional apology of the respondents no. 1 and 2

be accepted. Indisputably, the conduct of the aforesaid respondents,

as delineated above, is not of such a nature as may be termed as

condonable.

So far the rate of interest is concerned as already discussed

above, the respondent is liable to pay interest @18% p.a. so far as the

pre suit period is concerned. However, pendent lite and future

interest @ 6% can be awarded in the exercise of discretion by this

court under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the

principal amount was paid by the respondent in various instalments,

therefore, so as to ascertain what exact amount would be payable

by the respondent, so far the pendente lite interest is concerned,

that requires proper calculation. Before this court is called upon to

take further decision to award sentence against the respondents no.

1 to 3, it is deemed appropriate and in the interest of justice to

offer an opportunity to the respondents no. 1 to 4 to pay amount of

the interest i.e. pre suit amount @18% p.a which would be on the

principal amount of Rs.5,75,00,000/- and the interest @6% p.a. on

the principal amount as is found outstanding based on the aforesaid

discussion, after giving an adjustment of the payments made by the

petitioner through the said 16 cheques.

One of the contentions raised by counsel for respondents No. 1

to 4 was that petitioner has no locus-standi to file the present

contempt petition as after the amalgamation of the petitioner into

Avantha Realty Limited it has no existence in the eyes of law. I do not

find any substance in the argument raised by counsel for respondents

1 to 4 as the present company petition was filed by the petitioner

before its amalgamation and even the alleged defiance of the stay

order has been made by the respondents prior to the amalgamation of

the petitioner company with Avantha Realty Limited company. In any

case the petitioner has already moved an application under Rule 9 of

the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 read with Section 151 of the CPC

vide CA No.920/12 to bring on record the said change in the legal

entity of the petitioner. Alongwith the application the petitioner has

also placed on record order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the company

court sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of petitioner company

with Avantha Realty Ltd. in terms of Section 391 & 394 of the

Companies Act. With the said facts being on record the locus-standi of

the petitioner company cannot be challenged by taking a

hyper-technical view that M/s Avantha Realty Ltd. has not been

substituted in place of the petitioner company.

Counsel appearing for the respondents have also challenged the

maintainability of these contempt petitions on the ground of

limitation. The contention raised by counsel for the respondents was

that the petitioners have failed to file the contempt petitions within a

period of one year from the date of the passing of the interim order

dated 15.9.2006. This contention of counsel for the respondents is

also devoid of any merit as the period of one year is not to be

reckoned from the date of passing of interim order but from the date

when the petitioners came to know about the act of contempt

committed by the respondents. The petitioners have filed the petitions

within one year from the date of execution of the Sale Deeds although

in respect of one of the Sale Deed dated 9.11.2006 objection has been

raised that the same was in furtherance of the Agreement to Sell

which was executed prior to the passing of the interim order. In any

event of the matter this court can also exercise its power of contempt

under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and therefore limitation

period of one year will not come in the way of this court, if this court

ultimately finds that the respondents are in contempt of the said stay

order.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion this court deem it just and

proper to afford opportunity to the said respondent nos. 1 to 4 to clear

off their entire outstanding dues within a period of three months from

the date of this order in terms of the directions given above and

necessary orders on the sentence as well as on the fate of Sale Deeds

which were executed after the passing of the interim order shall be

passed by this court after completion of three months period. The

respondents/contemnors no. 1 to 3 shall remain present in the court

on the next date of hearing.

List this matter accordingly on 8.11.2012.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J August 06, 2012