HDFC Compliance with Court Directive Upheld

The court concluded that HDFC had complied with the court's directive by considering the applicant's representation and making a business decision not to restore the housing loan or the flat allotment. The court dismissed the contempt application, stating that the decisions of HDFC were not contumacious and were based on valid business reasons. The court also noted that the dispute primarily lay between the applicant and HDFC, with the Income Tax Department having complied with the court's orders by revoking the attachment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of wilful disobedience of court orders dated 2 April 2012.
2. Legality of notices and attachment orders issued by the Tax Recovery Officer.
3. Compliance with court orders by HDFC regarding the revival of financial facilities and cancellation of allotment.
4. Alleged non-compliance by HDFC and the builder in restoring the flat allotment and housing loan.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegation of Wilful Disobedience of Court Orders Dated 2 April 2012:
The contempt application was filed alleging wilful disobedience of the orders dated 2 April 2012 by a Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Tax No.1767 of 2011 and Writ Tax No.216 of 2012. It was claimed that the respondents failed to comply with the court's directive to restore the financial facilities and the allotment of the flat.

2. Legality of Notices and Attachment Orders Issued by the Tax Recovery Officer:
The first writ petition (Writ Tax No.1767 of 2011) sought to quash the notice dated 15 February 2011 and subsequent notices and summons, as well as the attachment order dated 25 April 2011. The court held that the Tax Recovery Officer issued notices under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act without jurisdiction, setting aside these notices and restraining further proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of any amount due to Ms. Vejenti Gupta.

3. Compliance with Court Orders by HDFC Regarding the Revival of Financial Facilities and Cancellation of Allotment:
In the second writ petition (Writ Tax No.216 of 2012), the petitioner sought a mandamus directing HDFC to revive the financial facility and withdraw the cancellation of allotment. The court permitted the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to HDFC, which was directed to take appropriate action. HDFC communicated its decision on 13 October 2012, maintaining the cancellation of the allotment and declining the restoration of the loan based on the applicant's irregular loan payments.

4. Alleged Non-Compliance by HDFC and the Builder in Restoring the Flat Allotment and Housing Loan:
The petitioner contended that despite the court's orders, HDFC and the builder did not revive the allotment of the flat. HDFC, in its compliance affidavit, stated that the cancellation was maintained due to the applicant's poor financial discipline. The court noted that HDFC's decision was based on commercial parameters and business interests, and thus, the decisions communicated by HDFC on 13 October 2012 and 22 October 2013 were not contumacious.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that HDFC had complied with the court's directive by considering the applicant's representation and making a business decision not to restore the housing loan or the flat allotment. The court dismissed the contempt application, stating that the decisions of HDFC were not contumacious and were based on valid business reasons. The court also noted that the dispute primarily lay between the applicant and HDFC, with the Income Tax Department having complied with the court's orders by revoking the attachment.

---