https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282610 The Supreme Court dismissed the petition subject to the contemnor filing an undertaking and granted time for vacating the premises. The contemnor submitted an affidavit undertaking to vacate the premises by a specified date. Subsequently, the contemnor informed the complainant that a portion of the premises was vacated, while the rest was in possession of their brother pursuant to an agreement of sale. The Court found contemnor No. 1's stand untenable as he did not disclose partial possession earlier. It was established that an executed Power of Attorney by contemnor No. 1 in favor of contemnor No. 2 did not mention any independent rights claimed by contemnor No. 2, thereby overruling the objections raised by contemnor No. 2. Consequently, the Court held that the order of eviction against contemnor No. 1 applied to contemnor No. 2 as well. The Court directed the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, to take necessary steps, including police assistance if required, to eject contemnor No. 2 from the premises and ensure the possession is handed over to the complainant by removing any obstructions. The compliance report was to be submitted after executing the Court's order. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Aug 2019 16:24:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282610 The Supreme Court dismissed the petition subject to the contemnor filing an undertaking and granted time for vacating the premises. The contemnor submitted an affidavit undertaking to vacate the premises by a specified date. Subsequently, the contemnor informed the complainant that a portion of the premises was vacated, while the rest was in possession of their brother pursuant to an agreement of sale. The Court found contemnor No. 1's stand untenable as he did not disclose partial possession earlier. It was established that an executed Power of Attorney by contemnor No. 1 in favor of contemnor No. 2 did not mention any independent rights claimed by contemnor No. 2, thereby overruling the objections raised by contemnor No. 2. Consequently, the Court held that the order of eviction against contemnor No. 1 applied to contemnor No. 2 as well. The Court directed the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, to take necessary steps, including police assistance if required, to eject contemnor No. 2 from the premises and ensure the possession is handed over to the complainant by removing any obstructions. The compliance report was to be submitted after executing the Court's order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282610