Jairaj Devidas And Ors. vs. M/S. Arun Bhoomi Corporation , Partnership Firm And Ors.

Held

The Court held that there was no wilful disobedience of the order dated November 11, 2011. The reasoning was based on the material presented by the respondents, particularly the chart showing that bookings and earnest money payments for many of the disputed flats and shops were made prior to the court's order. The Court found that the respondents had not attempted to deceive by backdating all transactions, as they had chosen to disclose the actual dates of earnest money payments. The Court also noted the proposal by the respondents to freeze six flats in favour of the petitioners as security, which was accepted. While acknowledging that some transactions might have occurred after the order, the Court concluded that the disobedience, if any, was not wilful or intentional. The Court directed that the petitioners should be appraised of the flats allotted prior to November 11, 2010, and those that received bookings but where the booking amount was not accepted within two weeks from the order, by providing a list marking this distinction. The Contempt Petition was dropped.

Facts

The petitioners filed a Contempt Petition alleging disobedience of a Bombay High Court order dated November 11, 2011, in Writ Petition No. 4255 of 2011. The petitioners contended that the respondents created third-party rights by handing over possession of shop premises and constructing residential flats and shops after the said order. They claimed to have discovered these third-party interests around December 12, 2019, and filed the contempt petition on February 27, 2020. The respondents, in their defense, submitted a chart detailing agreements and earnest money payments, asserting that bookings and payments were made prior to the November 11, 2011 order, although agreements were executed subsequently. The court noted that the original order restrained the respondents from creating third-party rights from November 11, 2011, onwards, with existing rights subject to the outcome of a civil suit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order dated November 11, 2011, by creating third-party rights in the suit property after the said date, thereby violating the restraint order? The petitioners argued that the respondents have demonstrably created third-party interests by handing over possession of shop premises and constructing new units, as evidenced by title search reports and Index-II reflecting third-party rights. They contended that this constitutes wilful disobedience of the court's order. The respondents countered by presenting a detailed chart indicating that earnest money and booking amounts for several flats and shops were accepted prior to November 11, 2011, even if the formal agreements were executed thereafter. They argued that these transactions pre-dated the prohibitory order and therefore did not constitute disobedience. The respondents relied on the bifurcation of agreements based on the dates of earnest money payment and execution of agreements, as presented in their affidavits.