Delhi High Court
K M Dhoundiyal & Anr vs Shailender Kumar Singh & Ors on 5 October, 2016
#14
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 598/2016 & CM APPL. 33301/2016
K M DHOUNDIYAL & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Manish Sharma with
Mr. Abhishek Agarwal and
Mr. Jigyasa Sharma, Advocates.
Petitioners in person.
versus
SHAILENDER KUMAR SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajat Aneja with Mr. Sanjay
Kumar and Mr. Toyesh Tewari,
Advocates
% Date of Decision: 05th October, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience
of the order dated 21st April, 2016 passed in O.M.P.(I) 100/2015 wherein the
Court directed M/s. Aranya Hospitality Management Services Pvt. Ltd. to
pay the arrears of rent for the period, i.e., from March 2014 to 30th April,
2016 within two weeks. M/s. Aranya Hospitality Management Services Pvt.
Ltd. was also directed to keep on paying rent to the petitioners as per the
Lease Deed dated 1st October, 2013 on or before 7th day of every month till
the date arbitration proceedings were finally decided.
2. It is pertinent to mention that in the order dated 21 st April, 2016 it is
specifically recorded "It is a matter of record that the respondent No.1 (M/s.
Aranya Hospitality Management Services Pvt. Ltd.) has misled the Court by
making the statement that the rent in terms of the lease deed for the period,
i.e. from March to November, 2014 was paid whereas the said amount was
not paid, nor any proof is produced before the Court".
3. However, as no payment was made in accordance with the order dated
21st April, 2016, present contempt petition was filed.
4. On 12th July, 2016, this Court recorded that though it was inclined to
take the respondent into custody forthwith, yet it did not do so as the
advocate for respondent had assured and undertaken to this Court that
respondent nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the outstanding amount in this Court
within two weeks. On 12th July, 2016, this Court also made it clear that in
the event of any default and/or breach of the aforesaid undertaking, it would
have no other option but to take the respondents into custody.
5. Yet, on next date of hearing i.e. on 04th August, 2016, respondents
sought further time to pay.
6. On 8th August, 2016, the counsel for the respondents handed over two
bank drafts totalling to Rs. 9 lacs in favour of the Registrar General, Delhi
High Court which was directed to be encashed and amount was directed to
be released to the petitioner. On the said date, the counsel for respondents
had also undertaken to pay another instalment of Rs. 11 lacs on or before
31st August, 2016 and the balance outstanding amount in accordance with
the Lease Deed dated 1st October, 2013 including the enhanced rentals on or
before 30th September, 2016.
7. Admittedly, the said deadlines have been breached.
8. Today, the counsel for respondents states that after the last date of
hearing respondents have restarted the restaurant in the petitioner's premises
and the respondents can only pay Rs.11 lacs. He states that respondents
would pay the outstanding amounts within a further period of two months.
9. The offer made by the respondents does not inspire any confidence as
from the aforesaid facts it is apparent that the respondents have repeatedly
breached their undertakings and assurances given to this Court. Even today,
two demand drafts totalling to only Rs. 11 lacs have been handed over,
though the counsel for the respondents had on 8th August, 2016 undertaken
that the balance outstanding rentals would be paid on or before 30th
September, 2016.
10. In fact, breach of undertaking dated 08th August, 2016 constitutes the
third breach inasmuch as the undertakings given before the Coordinate
Bench on 21st April, 2016 and before this Court on 12th July, 2016 already
stand breached/violated.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents states that respondent
no.3 is neither an owner nor employee of M/s. Aranya Hospitality
Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
12. No affidavit to the said effect has been filed till date despite the notice
having been issued in the present proceedings on 20th May, 2016 and the
matter thereafter having been listed before this Court on at least five
occasions.
13. However, in the interest of justice, at the moment respondent nos.1
and 2 are alone held guilty of contempt. Counsel for the respondents is
directed to file an affidavit stating that respondent no. 3 is not connected
with M/s. Aranya Hospitality Management Services Pvt. Ltd. in any manner
within four weeks.
14. The sentencing of respondent nos. 1 and 2 is deferred till the next date
of hearing as counsel for the said respondents assure and undertake to this
Court that the balance outstanding shall be paid before the next date of
hearing.
15. List on 19th December, 2016.
16. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall be personally present in Court on the
next date of hearing.
17. Court Master is directed to accept the demand drafts of Rs.11 lacs and
deposit the same with the Accounts Branch of the Registry by tomorrow.
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 05, 2016
rn
