Supreme Court of India
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND versus DHARMESH S. JAIN AND ANOTHER on 12 May 2022
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
AURBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND
v.
DHARMESH S. JAIN AND ANOTHER
(Contempt Petition(civil) No.940/2021)
B
In
Miscellaneous Application No.1668/2021
In
Special Leave Petition (civil) No.14724/2021
CMAY 12, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Wilful disobedience of Courtorders – Respondents / contemnors, more particularly, respondentDno.1, were held guilty for wilful disobedience of the orders passedby Supreme Court as well as the High Court and they were heldliable to be punished suitably under provisions of the Contempt ofCourts Act – Even thereafter sufficient opportunities were given torespondents / contemnors to either comply with the orders of SupremeCourt and the High Court, or to settle the dispute amicably with theEpetitioner – Respondents/contemnors neither complied with suchorders of the Supreme Court and the High Court nor was the disputesettled – In the circumstances, Respondent no.1 now sentenced bythe Supreme Court to undergo seven days simple imprisonment –Fine imposed on both respondents, to be deposited before the HighFCourt within two weeks – However, so as to give one last opportunityto the contemnor to purge the contempt and comply with the orderspassed by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court, the sentenceimposed shall be kept in abeyance for two weeks, failing which,such sentence shall take effect and on non-compliance, respondentNo.1 will then surrender before the concerned Court / Authority toGundergo the sentence of seven days simple imprisonment as imposedby the Supreme Court – Sentence / Sentencing.
INHERENT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 940of 2021.
InH
Miscellaneous Application No.1668 of 2021
In
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14724 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2021 of this Court anddated 08.08.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Noticeof Motion No.960 of 2019 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.55 of2019.
Puneet Singh Bindra, Ms. Simran Jeet, Sanampreet Singh, Advs.for the Petitioner.
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Kunal Vajani, Ashok Paranjpe, KunalMimani, Shubhang Tandon, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Vide detailed judgment and order dated 10.03.2022 passed inthe aforesaid Contempt Petition, this Court held the respondents guilty,more particularly, respondent No.1 herein – Dharmesh S. Jain, for thecontempt of this Court for wilful disobedience of the order dated28.10.2021 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14724/2021, as also, forwilful disobedience of the order passed by the High Court dated08.08.2019 in Notice of Motion No. 960 of 2019 in Commercial ArbitrationPetition No. 55 of 2019 and the respondents herein rendered themselvesliable for suitable punishment under the provisions of the Contempt ofCourts Act. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.03.2022, therespondents/contemnors were required to be heard on the quantum ofsentence. Accordingly, on 22.03.2022, the matter was placed before theBench for further hearing on the quantum of sentence.
2. We have heard Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the contemnors on the quantum of sentence.However, at his request, the order on the quantum of sentence wasdeferred, so as to enable the respondents/contemnors to either enterinto an amicable settlement with the petitioner or to comply with theorders passed by this Court and the High Court, of which they are heldguilty for wilful disobedience.
A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
A3. Thereafter, Shri Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the respondents/contemnors was called upon by the Court with regardto the latest developments which might have a bearing on the imposingof a suitable sentence. Shri Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondents/contemnors stated at the Bar that though therespondents/contemnors have tried to settle the dispute amicably withBthe petitioner, but there is no final settlement arrived at between theparties. The fact remains that even after the respondents are held guiltyfor wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court as well as theHigh Court vide judgment and order dated 10.03.2022, and even thereaftergiving sufficient opportunities to the respondents/contemnors to eitherCcomply with the orders of this Court and the High Court, of which wilfuldisobedience is proved and they are held liable to be punished suitablyunder the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, or to settle thedispute amicably with the petitioner herein, neither the respondents/contemnors have complied with the orders passed by this Court as wellas the High Court nor have they settled the dispute amicably.D
4. In the above circumstances and in furtherance of our earlierjudgment and order dated 10.03.2022 whereby the respondents, moreparticularly, respondent no.1 has been held guilty for wilful disobedienceof the order passed by this Court dated 28.10.2021 in MiscellaneousApplication No. 1668 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14724/E2021, as also, the order passed by the High Court dated 08.08.2019 inNotice of Motion No. 960/2019 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.55/2019 and rendered himself liable for suitable punishment under theprovisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and even thereafter grantingthem sufficient opportunities to either settle the dispute amicably orFcomply with the orders of this Court and the High Court, neither theorders have been complied with nor the dispute has been settled amicably,we hereby sentence respondent No.1 – Dharmesh S. Jain to undergoseven days simple imprisonment, as also, impose a fine on both therespondents, which is quantified as Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs), tobe deposited before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay within aGperiod of two weeks from today and on such deposit, Rs. 4,00,000/-(rupees four lakhs) be paid to the petitioner herein and Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh) be transferred to the Maharashtra State Legal ServicesAuthority. However, so as to give one last opportunity to the contemnorto purge the contempt and comply with the orders passed by the BombayHHigh Court as well as this Court, it is observed that the aforesaid sentence shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from today, failingwhich, the aforesaid sentence shall take effect and on non-compliance,the respondent No.1 herein – Dharmesh S. Jain will then surrender beforethe concerned Court/Authority to undergo the sentence imposed by thisCourt, i.e., seven days simple imprisonment for a wilful disobedience ofthe orders passed by this Court and the High Court.
5. The present contempt petition stands disposed of in the aforesaidterms.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Petition disposed of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H