Supreme Court finds respondents in contempt for breaching flat allotment order.

The Supreme Court found the respondents in contempt for violating an order restraining further allotment of flats. The court interpreted "allotment" to include possession and registration, not just agreements. The respondents' actions post-order were deemed a clear violation, with their defense of misunderstanding rejected. The court noted their attempts to transfer the case and non-cooperation, showing disrespect. A one-month imprisonment and Rs. 2,000 fine were imposed on the second respondent, with additional imprisonment for default and Rs. 5,000 costs to be paid to the petitioners. The second respondent was taken into custody for imprisonment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Specific performance of agreements for allotment of flats.
2. Contempt of court for violating an order restraining further allotment of flats.
3. Validity and genuineness of the agreements of sale.
4. Interpretation of the term "allotment" in the court's order.
5. Conduct and compliance of the respondents with court orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Specific Performance of Agreements for Allotment of Flats:
The petitioners claimed entitlement to flats being constructed by the respondents based on agreements in their favor. They alleged that the respondents were allotting flats to third parties, thereby defeating their rights.

2. Contempt of Court for Violating an Order Restraining Further Allotment of Flats:
The Supreme Court had issued an order on 1.8.1991 restraining the respondents from making any further allotment of flats. The petitioners filed a Contempt Petition alleging that the respondents violated this order by allotting flats to third parties in January 1992.

3. Validity and Genuineness of the Agreements of Sale:
The respondents claimed that the agreements of sale for the flats were entered into on 26.4.1991, prior to the court's order. The petitioners disputed the genuineness of these agreements, suggesting they could have been fabricated.

4. Interpretation of the Term "Allotment" in the Court's Order:
The respondents argued that "allotment" referred only to the entering into agreements of sale, not the delivery of possession or registration of sale deeds. The court disagreed, interpreting "allotment" to include delivery of possession and registration of sale deeds.

5. Conduct and Compliance of the Respondents with Court Orders:
The court found that the respondents had consistently flouted its orders, showing disregard and disrespect. The respondents' behavior included attempting to transfer the case to another bench and non-cooperation with the Receiver appointed by the court.

Judgment Summary:

The Supreme Court held the respondents in contempt for violating its order dated 1.8.1991, which restrained them from making further allotments of flats. The court interpreted "allotment" to include the delivery of possession and registration of sale deeds, not just the entering into agreements of sale. The court found that the respondents' actions, including delivering possession and registering sale deeds after the order, constituted a brazen violation.

The court rejected the respondents' defense that they misunderstood the order, noting that they did not seek clarification from the court and instead proceeded in a manner that nullified the order. The court also noted the respondents' conduct, including attempts to transfer the case and non-cooperation with the Receiver, as evidence of their disregard for the court's authority.

The court imposed a sentence of one month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 on the second respondent, with additional imprisonment in case of default. The second respondent was also ordered to pay the petitioners' costs assessed at Rs. 5,000.

The second respondent, present in court, was taken into custody to undergo the sentence of imprisonment.

---