TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 810
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ails of the bookings made, name of the allottees, amount collected, details of bank accounts in which the amount has been deposited within 24 hours from receipt of the notice and also to furnish details of all agreements/arrangements arrived/entered into between the contemnors and respondents No. 1 to 4/alleged contemners." 2. The facts that led to the filing of the present contempt application are as follows: a. It is submitted that during the first hearing of captioned petition on 15.09.2017, upon hearing the submissions made by the petitioners and consequent to the statement of the alleged contemnors made during the course of hearing, this hon'ble tribunal was inter-alia pleased to direct/record as under: "...... In the circumstances, status quo to be maintained in relation to the shareholding as of date and that "THE GLEN" is apart of the project of "AURIEL TOWNE" is taken off..." b. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the captioned petition, it came to the knowledge of the Petitioner No. 1 that the alleged Contemnors were in the process of disposing off and/or creating third party rights in the parcel of land, admeasuring approximately 40,500 sq. met....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Petitioner No. 1, it came to the notice of Petitioner No. 1 that Contemnors Nos. 1 to 5 along with Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/alleged Contemnors, have entered into some arrangement/agreement, in complete violation and contempt of the above orders. Contemnors Nos. 2 to 5 being Directors of Contemnor No. 1 are thus jointly and severally liable for contempt for having flouted and breached the above orders. While Contemnor No. 1, an entity incorporated in 2019, has in its brochure, which is uploaded on the official website of Contemnor No. 1, shows the company being established since 1977. Further, It is also published on the said website of Contemnor No. 1 that Managing director of the Contemner No. 1 is Mr. Alok Sinha, i.e., Contemner No. 6, whose mobile number is 9818185460, as displayed on the hoardings at site. In order to ascertain the fact about Contemnor No. 1 and that it is operating and carrying construction on the subject land, a decoy customer was sent at site who was informed that the project has been taken over by Contemnor No. 1 from Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/alleged Contemners and that Contemnor No. 1 is taking up the bookings and collecting money in its name, in complete ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bench, which is clearly abuse of the process of law. It is argued that there is no willful disobedience of the orders dated 15.09.2017 or 15.01.2019 as respondent No. 1 have not modified the status of shareholding of the respondent No. 1 in respect of which order dated 15.09.2017 was passed. Moreover, the status of the subject properly is the same as the title and interest in the said property vested with the respondent No. 1 as on 15.01.2019. Therefore, no violation of order dated 15.01.2019. Furthermore, order dated 15.01.2019 whereby the respondents were directed to maintain status quo with respect to project property cannot by any stretch of imagination can be construed to interpret that the respondents could not carry out construction at the project over the said plot, especially when larger interest of buyers of the units in the project being developed on the project is concerned. It is also argued that, though at slow pace, the respondents were carrying out construction at the project site as on 15.01.2019 and continue to carry on the construction at the project site as on date. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed and it is also submitted that the managing d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others (2002) 5 SCC 352, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju and Another (2004) 13 SCC 610, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami and Others (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Union of India and Others v. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613." 6. In order to establish that there is contempt by the respondents of the order of this tribunal. Following ingredients have to be fulfilled namely;--Firstly, whether there is any restraint order against any of the parties; Secondly, whether Respondents are aware of the order; Thirdly, whether the respondents are able to comply with the order; Lastly, whether there is disobedience of the order by the respondent. 7. In the instant case there are two orders of this Tribunal, the disobedience which has been alleged by the Applicant. These are the orders dated 15.9.2017 and dated 15.1.2019. The order dated 15.9.2017 reads as under: "...... In the circumstances, status quo to be....