2015 (10) TMI 2440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "Respondents are also to maintain status quo as ordered in the case of the Petitioners". (in fact it is the case of CA No. 70/2007). 2. The Petitioner Counsel further says that status quo order passed on 1.3.2007 is not on the facts of CA 70/2007 decided on 23.7.2007; but it is on CA 89/2007 moved by the petitioner. Since status quo order has been subsisting till date, it must be read as an order passed to maintain existing position until termination of those orders. Since it is an order of status quo, it shall not be construed as an order limited to alienation or creating third party rights, it is in fact, an order to maintain existing position as on the date of order intact. Therefore, the construction over the building whereupon status....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Respondents moved that CA (paras 4,5 & 7 of the CA) with an apprehension that the petitioners side was likely to creat third party rights, in this, context, this Bench passed an order dated 23.2.2007 to maintain status quo in relation to the property in dispute. The counsel says it is not an order passed when the tenant making any construction, it is an order passed in the context when the petitioners were negotiating with private parties to create third parties. Likewise when the petitioners moved CA 89/2007 stating that the matter in respect of the property above mentioned was under adjudication in DRT proceedings, and if order were passed in DRT proceedings, this Bench would not be in a position pass orders, saying so, the petitioners as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er submits that the Petitioners have not obtained any restraint order to keep the terms and conditions of lease agreement in abeyance. 5. On hearing the submissions, it is pertinent to look into the orders passed by this Bench and effect of them, before going into Contempt Application moved by the Petitioners. On seeing CA No.70/2007 moved by the Respondents, it is apparent that respondent alleged that Petitioners making efforts to alienate the property in dispute, therefore, sought restraint order against the Petitioners over the property in dispute. On seeing CA 70/2007, this Bench passed a status quo order on 23.2.2007 to maintain status quo over the asset in dispute. In no time, the Petitioners also moved CA 89/2007 for similar order, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents stating that the construction work over the building in dispute is in wilful violation to the orders passed by this Bench on 1.3.2015, but on reading the orders in the light of the applications moved by both of them in the year 2007,1 am of the view that the actions of the tenant or respondents are not hit by any contempt, one-the tenant is not a party, though he is son of R2, he has to be made as party, two-the order was passed to stop creating third party rights, here there is no creation of third party rights. I must also observe that contempt proceedings are not simplicitor civil proceedings, it has punitive consequence, therefore, whenever contempt proceedings are initiated by the cour....