Delhi High Court
Indra Chand Jain vs Jaideep Gupta on 21 August, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: February 07, 2019
Pronounced on: August 21, 2019
+ CONT. CAS(C) 23/2004 & CRL.M.A.8872/2004
INDRA CHAND JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw &
Mr. Shivansh Soni, Advocates.
Versus
JAIDEEP GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Amicus Curiae,
Mr.Vinod Pandey &Mr. Kunal Awana,
Advocates with respondent in person.
+ CONT. CAS(C) 313/2005 & CRL.M.A.1459/2007 &
CM 1978/2007
DR. INDRA CHAND JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw &
Mr. Shivansh Soni, Advocates.
Versus
PUSHPA GUPTA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Amicus Curiae,
Mr.Vinod Pandey & Mr. Kunal Awana,
Advocates with respondent No.3 in
person.
Mr. A.B.Dial, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Ananya Datta Majumdar, Advocate
for respondents No.4 & 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
CONT. CAS(C) 23/2004 & CONT. CAS(C) 313/2005 Page 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
CONT. CAS(C) 23/2004, CRL.M.A.8872/2004 & CONT.
CAS(C) 313/2005, CRL.M.A.1459/2007, CM 1978/2007
In the above captioned contempt petitions, violation of orders of 5 th
July, 1982 and 4th April, 1983 passed in RFA No.188/1982 is alleged.
Vide aforesaid orders of 5th July, 1982 and 4th April, 1983 in RFA
No.188/1982 appellant-Sudhir Kumar Gupta, was restrained from
alienating suit property and vide orders of 4th April, 1983 it was ordered
that status quo in respect of suit property be maintained by the parties.
According to petitioner, respondent/contemnor in violation of the
aforesaid orders of 5th July, 1982 and 4th April, 1983 have alienated 1/12th
share each of the suit property in favour of one Ms. Simmi Berry vide two
sale deeds of 29th July, 1994.
The aforesaid is the contempt alleged against respondent/Jaideep
Gupta in the above captioned first petition, whereas in the above
captioned second petition, the contempt alleged against Pushpa Gupta,
Sandeep Gupta, Jaideep Gupta and Anupama Jagdi is of violating the
aforesaid orders by executing four release deeds for consideration in
October, 2004 in favour of respondent no.5/Sh.Ramnik Gupta, brother of
S.K.Gupta.
The stand taken by the respondents/contemnors in the reply to this
contempt petition is that they had come to know about the status quo
order only on 24th August, 2004 and they had no knowledge of the
execution of the release deed in pursuance to the decree passed by the
trial court. In the reply, it is also stated by the respondent nos.1 to 4 that
the release deeds have been executed by them under duress and
misrepresentation and that respondent nos.1 to 4 had no money to sustain
themselves at the time of execution of the release deeds and so they had
received ₹20,000/- only, whereas in the release deeds amount mentioned
is ₹1,50,000/- each.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
respondents/contemnors were aware of the passing of the interim order
against Sh.S.K.Gupta who had died on 15th October, 1986 as they had
sought impleadment in the RFA No.188/1982 and the
respondents/contemnors were brought on record on 18th January, 1988. It
was submitted that respondents/contemnors were very much aware of the
interim orders passed in the aforesaid RFA, as several litigations were
going on between the parties and so the respondents/contemnors ought to
be suitably punished.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents/contemnors
submitted that the contempt petition has been filed belatedly after a
period of ten years from the date of alleged contempt and is barred by
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. To submit so, reliance
was placed on Supreme Court‟s decision in Maheshwar Peri & Ors. vs.
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, (2016) 14 SCC 251. Learned
counsel for respondents/contemnors reiterated the stand taken by the
respondents/contemnors in the reply to the contempt petition.
Respondent/contemnor-Jaideep Gupta, in CONT. CAS(C) 23/2004
appeared in person with Mr.Ashwin Vaish, Amicus Curiae and
respondent no.3 in CONT. CAS(C) 313/2005 also appeared in person on
behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4 in the aforesaid petition. Photocopy of
death certificate of respondent/contemnor - Pushpa Gupta was handed
over in Court and it was taken on record.
Learned Senior counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that
respondent no.5 in CONT. CAS(C) 313/2005 was not a party to RFA
188/1982 and had no knowledge about the interim orders passed and the
execution of release deeds is a family arrangement not only in respect of
the suit property but in respect of the entire estate of late B.D.Gupta.
The submissions advanced by both the sides in these petitions and
the applications have been duly considered and on perusal of the record,
this Court finds that contempt proceedings ought not to be initiated unless
a degree of default or misconduct is quite evident. The contemnous act
alleged done with a "bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or
stubbornly, obstinately or perversely" needs to be punished in contempt
proceedings. The wilful act has to be distinguished from an act done
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. A deliberate conduct of a
person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same.
Thus, there has to be a calculative violation with evil motive, for
initiating contempt proceedings. Even if there is disobedience of an order
but such disobedience is result of some compelling circumstances, then
the contemnor cannot be punished.
The pertinent observations of Supreme Court in „Ram Kishan Vs.
Tarun Bajaj & Ors.' (2014) 16 SCC 204 which are as under:-
"It is well-settled principle of law that if two
interpretations are possible, and if the action is not
contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be
maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be
taken into consideration and the same must be read in its
entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an
indispensable requirement to bring home the charge
within the meaning of the Act".
In the light of afore-referred legal position, the alleged contempt
has been examined and thereupon it becomes evident that the
respondent/contemnors had learnt about the status-quo order in August,
2004 and prior thereto, they had no knowledge about status-quo orders
passed by this Court on 5th July, 1982 and 4th April, 1983. This aspect
assumes importance in the light of the fact that the original contemnor-
S.K. Gupta had died in October, 1986 and there is nothing on record to
show that he was aware about the passing of the aforesaid interim orders
in the appeal.
Considering the fact that the legal heirs of original contemnor were
ill advised that execution of lease deeds would not violate the interim
orders, I find that the legal heirs of original contemnors had bona fidely
executed the release deeds in favour of Ramnik Gupta, who was not a
party to the civil suit nor was a party in the appeal. Since aforesaid
Ramnik Gupta, cannot be hauled up for contempt, therefore, the title of
applicant-M/s Evershine Pvt. Ltd. who had purchased the subject property
from aforesaid Ramnik Gupta, cannot be put under cloud. It has come on
record that due to financial stringencies the alleged contemnors had
executed the release deeds and since it was done under compelling
circumstances, therefore, the alleged contemnors cannot be punished for
disobeying the interim orders passed in the appeal, as this Court finds that
their conduct was neither wilful nor intentional or perverse.
Consequently, this Court is not inclined to proceed against the
alleged contemnors for violation of the interim orders passed in the
appeal.
The contempt petitions and the applications are accordingly
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 21, 2019
ak/p'ma
