GEETA MEHTA & ANR. vs ANIL MEHTA & ANR.

2023-11-06 Information

$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 06th November, 2023
+ CCP(O) 80/2023
ANIL MEHTA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Advocate for Applicant with applicant in person.

versus

1. SMT. RITU MAHESHWARI I.A.S.

Presently Divisional Commissioner, Agra,
(Ex.CEO, NOIDA Authority, NOIDA) ….. Respondent No. 1

2. MS. PRIYA SINGH, AGM (INDUSTRY) NOIDA AUTHORITY (U.P.)

C/o Chief Administrative Building, Sector-6, NOIDA,
District Gautam Budha Nagar-201301 ….. Respondent No. 2

3. SH. G.S. CHILWAL, RETD. OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT (INDUSTRY) NOIDA AUTHORITY (U.P.)

C/o Chief Administrative Building, Sector-6, NOIDA,
District Gautam Budha Nagar-201301 ….. Respondent No. 3

4. MS. SUMAN BHANDARI, MANAGER (INDUSTRY)

C/o Chief Administrative Building, Sector-6, NOIDA,
District Gautam Budha Nagar-201301 ….. Respondent No. 4
Through:

in
CS(OS) 364/2019
GEETA MEHTA & ANR. ….. Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Abhiesumat Gupta, Advocate.

versus

ANIL MEHTA & ANR. ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Advocate for D-1 with D-1 in person.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T (oral)
CCP(O) 80/2023

1. The present Civil Contempt Petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/Anil Mehta (defendant No. 1 in CS (OS) 364/2019 hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent/Contemnor Nos. 1 to 4 (the officers of Noida Authorities) for wilful disobedience of the Order dated 23.07.2019 passed in the present Suit.
2. It is submitted that the Property bearing No. A-33, Sector 65, Noida (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) was allotted to Smt. Bimla Mehta, wife of Late R.S. Mehta and Smt. Anuradha Mehta, wife of Shri Anil Mehta (partners of M/s Kalindi Industries) by the NOIDA Authority. Smt. Bimla Devi expired on 29.06.2017.
3. The present Suit for Partition and Permanent Injunction has been filed by the plaintiffs, namely: Ms. Geeta Mehta and Mr. Pranav Mehta, against all the legal heirs of Late Smt. Bimla Mehta in which the petitioner/Anil Mehta is arrayed as the defendant No. 1.
4. It is asserted that Smt. Bimla Mehta, during her lifetime, had executed the Will dated 30.04.2011 in respect of aforesaid suit property bequeathing her share to Mr. Anil Mehta. However, Ms. Geeta Mehta and Mr. Pranav Mehta, challenged the Will dated 30.04.2011 in the present Suit.
5. Vide Order dated 23.07.2019, the parties were directed that till the next date of hearing, defendants are restrained from selling, alienating/create any third party interest in the suit properties described in Schedule-I of the Plaint.
6. It is submitted that on account of interim injunction, the petitioner/Anil Mehta was unable to complete the construction of the building and start the business within the give timeframe i.e., upto 31.12.2022.
7. The petitioner/Anil Mehta wrote various letters from time to time to the NOIDA Authority seeking extension of time due to the interim injunction granted vide Order dated 23.07.2019 by this Court for completing the construction of the building. Despite having informed the NOIDA Authority, the extension was not granted. The NOIDA Authority vide Notice dated 07.02.2022 directed the petitioner/Anil Mehta to complete construction of the building and start commencement of business latest by 31.12.2022. It is submitted that before the grant of interim injunction, the major part of the construction, including that of basement, had been completed, but no further construction could be carried out in the light of the interim injunction. The petitioner/Anil Mehta was unable to get the property mutated in his name or to raise/complete the construction and start the business.
8. It is claimed that despite NOIDA Authority being informed about the interim injunction, it, in complete disregard, cancelled the allotment of the suit property in the name of Smt. Bimla Mehta vide Office Order dated 10.03.2023.
9. It is also submitted that the officers of the NOIDA Authority, namely, the respondents/Contemnors No.1/Smt. Ritu Maheswari, IAS, No. 2/Ms. Priay Singh, AGM (Industry), NOIDA Authority, No. 3/Sh. G.S. Chilwal, Retd. Office Superintendent (Industry) and No. 4/Ms. Suman Bhandari, Manager (Industry), have acted in gross disregard to the interim injunction granted vide Order dated 23.07.2019 due intimation of which had been conveyed.
10. Hence, the prayer is made that the contempt proceedings be initiated and the respondents/contemnors who are the officers of Noida Authority be punished for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Order dated 23.07.2019 passed in the present Suit bearing No. CS(OS) 364/2019.
11. A reliance has been placed on Kapildeo Singh vs. Rajcndra Agricultural University, Bihar 2006 LawSuit (Pat) 949 to submit that even though the respondents were not a party to the Suit, can be held guilty of contempt if despite notice, they obstruct or fail to comply with the directions of the Court.
12. Submissions heard from the learned counsels for the parties.
13. Ms. Geeta Mehta and Mr. Pranav Mehta, plaintiffs herein have filed the present Suit seeking Partition and Permanent Injunction of the suit property, in which the interim injunction was granted vide Order dated 23.07.2019 restraining the parties from creating any third-party interest in the suit property. It is observed that the said interim injunction, in no manner, prevented the petitioner/Anil Mehta (defendant No.1 in the Suit) from taking necessary steps to complete the formalities with the NOIDA Authority. In case there was a deadline, then appropriate proceedings, including taking permission from the Court should have been undertaken by the petitioner/Anil Mehta. Instead, the petitioner/Anil Mehta has chosen to sit quiet on the basis of interim injunction granted which was only limited to non-creation of third-party rights. The petitioner/Anil Mehta himself defaulted to take effective steps for seeking extension of time by initiating appropriate proceedings/judicial action in view of the interim injunction granted by this Court which in no manner restricted or prevented him to take the necessary steps with the Statutory Authorities to protect the property from being wasted.
14. It is further observed that the NOIDA Authority was neither a party in the present Suit, nor was there any direction that the construction could not be carried out in the suit property.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Anil Mehta has placed reliance on Kapildeo Singh (supra) to contend that the contempt proceedings can be initiated against a person who may not be a party to the Suit. Though the law is settled that any person who tries to obstruct the implementation of the Orders of the Court, whether a party or not to the Suit, can be held liable for Contempt of Court. However, in the present case, there is nothing to show that it is the respondents/contemnors who have in any manner obstructed the implementation of the interim injunction granted vide Order dated 23.07.2019 which was limited to non-creation of third party rights and thus, the aforesaid judgment is distinguishable on facts. The petitioner/Anil Mehta has, in fact, sought to distort the entire scope of interim injunction and interpreted it to his advantage and inaction.
16. From the foregoing discussions and submissions, no prima facie case of contempt of any Orders of the Court by the respondents/contemnor is made out.
17. Accordingly, the present Contempt Petition is without merit which is hereby dismissed.
CS(OS) 364/2019
18. List on 22.11.2023, the date already fixed.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 06, 2023
S.Sharma

CS(OS) 364/2019 Page 6 of 6