SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. versus UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS. on 8 May 2019

506

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 7 S.C.R.

A

SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS.

v.

UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

(Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.1505-1506/2017

B

in

(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10375-10376 of 2017)

MAY 08, 2019

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]C

Cooperative Society – Modern Cooperative Group HousingSociety had approved strength of 211 members – 27 members wereexpelled including the present contempt petitioners – 15 new membersincluding the alleged contemnors were inducted against thevacancies – Expulsion of those 27 members was challenged andDfinally Supreme Court accepted their claim and directed theiradjustment against the unallotted flats – Newly inducted membersincluding the alleged contemnors approached Supreme Court –Directed to move the Administrator/Registrar,Cooperative Societies– Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide order dtd. 24.02.12 set asidethe allotment of flats to them and directed re-admission of 14 personsEas members of the Society – Order challenged before the High Court– Rejected – Special leave petitions dismissed by Supreme Court,however liberty granted to the petitioners to file undertakings tovacate the apartments in their occupation – Undertakings filed –Present contempt petitions filed alleging that despite undertakingsFthe alleged contemnors failed to vacate the apartments in question– Order passed by Supreme Court on 10.01.19 – Affidavits filed bythe alleged contemnors indicating their willingness to deposit Rs.30lakhs, for construction of a new building in the society, as stated inthe said order – Held: Contemnors violated the orders passed bySupreme Court as despite having furnished the undertakings theyGfailed to vacate and hand over possession – But there are certainequities in their favour – They were inducted as members notclandestinely but against the resultant vacancies after expulsion ofcertain members, they paid all the instalments in time, on the basisof such instalments paid by the members including the alleged H

contemnors, the construction was completed and they were put inpossession of the apartments soon thereafter –In view of the reportsmade by the Architect a new building can be constructed with 18apartments– Alleged contemnors to vacate their respectiveapartments – Apartments so vacated be allotted to those personswho were directed to be re-admitted as members in order dtd. 24.02.12– Each of the alleged contemnors, if he or she desires to have anew apartment in the newly erected building, shall deposit Rs.10lakhs with the Administrator,Cooperative Societies – Furtherdirections passed.

Disposing of the Contempt Petitions, the Court

Conclusion

Disposing of the Contempt Petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 The alleged contemnors violated the orderspassed by Supreme Court and despite having furnishedappropriate undertakings, failed to vacate and hand overpossession. But there are certain equities in their favour; in thatthey were inducted as members not clandestinely but against theresultant vacancies after expulsion of certain members, that theyhad paid all the instalments in time, that on the basis of suchinstalments paid by the members including the alleged contemnorsthe construction was completed, and that they were put inpossession of the apartments soon thereafter. It is only as aresult of the expulsion orders of the contempt petitioners gettingset aside that the alleged contemnors have to vacate theirapartments and make way for the contempt petitioners. Thesociety had raised amounts and was benefited from two sets ofpersons that is the alleged contemnors as well as the contemptpetitioners and the fact of the matter is that the society is presentlyhaving funds to the tune of more than Rs.4 crores. Going by thereports made by the Architect a new building can be constructedwith 18 apartments, which means that after satisfying therequirements of all the alleged contemnors there will still be someapartments left, from the sale of which money for constructioncan be garnered. Furthermore, according to the Architect, withinthe FAR available to it, the society can construct such newbuilding. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has also in principleagreed that if FAR is available, the authority would not have anyobjection to grant permission for construction of a new building.[Paras 10, 11] [519-A-F]

AB

C

D

E

FG

H

508SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A1.2 In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met, iffollowing directions are passed:- a) All the alleged contemnorsshall vacate their respective apartments on or before 31.08.2019.The apartments so vacated shall thereafter be allotted to thosepersons who were directed to be re-admitted as members in termsof para 9 of the order passed by the Registrar, CooperativeBSocieties on 24.02.2012. The allotment shall be done in thepresence of an Official from the Office of the Registrar,Cooperative Societies in a manner known to law. b) Each of thealleged contemnors, if he or she desires to have a new apartmentin the newly erected building, shall deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhsCwith the Administrator of the Modern Cooperative Group HousingSociety Limited on or before 31.10.2019. Along with such deposit,an appropriate affidavit shall be filed by such person (s)undertaking that in case any further amount (s) are to be depositedtowards the cost of construction, he or she shall abide by such

requisition scrupulously. c) Upon such deposit and furnishing ofDan affidavit every such person shall be re-admitted in the Societyas a Member. d) Within one month from the date of this order,the Administrator shall prefer an appropriate application annexingtherewith all the required documents including plans and drawingsand seek permission to erect a new building with 18 apartments.ESuch application shall be preferred with the concerned appropriateAuthorities including Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (e)Municipal Corporation of Delhi which has agreed in principle thatthe permission for erecting a new building can be granted, shallconsider said application and take appropriate decision in thematter within one month from the date when the application isFpreferred. (f) After the construction has begun, the Administratorshall be entitled to initiate the process for having new membersadmitted who are willing to deposit such sums as are requiredtowards the cost of construction of an individual apartments whichcould then be allotted to them. (g) The Administrator shall alsoGbe entitled to have a fresh draw of lots in the presence of anOfficial from the Office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies inrespect of the building to be constructed so that each of those 18apartments could be allotted to the concerned persons includingthe alleged contemnors herein. (h) The alleged contemnors shallhave to find new or transit accommodation till they are finally putHin possession of the apartments so allotted to them after completion of construction. The cost and charges in that behalfshall be borne by the alleged contemnors and they shall not beentitled to have any amount reimbursed either from the societyor from any of the members. (i) Whether the cost of constructionmust come entirely from the allottees of apartments in the newbuilding to be constructed or whether the society would like tocontribute in that behalf, is a matter which ought to be decidedby the society. The alleged contemnors had made theircontribution and as a matter of fact the society has funds to thetune of more than Rs.4 crores available with it. In our view, thedirections as aforesaid would not only ensure that the contemptpetitioners are put in possession of the apartments to which theyhave been found to be entitled to but will also take care of theinterests of the alleged contemnors who are required to vacatethe apartments only because of the setting aside of the expulsionof the contempt petitioners. [Paras 12, 13] [519-G-H; 520-A-H;521-A-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil)Nos. 1505-1506 of 2017 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 10375-10376 of 2017.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2017 of the SupremeCourt of India in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 10375-10376 of 2017.

WithM.A. Nos. 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.9439 of 2003.

A. K. Sinha, Sr. Adv., S. D. Singh, Puneet Kr. Jain, Ms. ShwetaSinha, Ms. Surabhi Shukla, Ms. Meenu Singh, Ms. Deepika Goyal,R. K. Singh, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Krishnamohan K., Mohit Singh,Ms. Dania Nayyar, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, R. C. Kaushik, Ms. SunitaSharma, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, B. V. Balaram Das, Praveen Swarup,Madan Mohan, Ajay Kumar Giri, Suvesh Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, B. P.Gupta, Shekhar Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. This Contempt Petition inter alia seeks enforcement of theorder dated 31.03.2017 passed by this Court in SLP(C)…..CC No.6319of 2017 and prays for direction that the contempt petitioners be put in A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apossession of 12 apartments indicated in the Contempt Petition. Theorder dated 31.03.2017 passed by this Court was to the following effect:

“Taken on board.

Application for exemption from filing certified as well as plaincopy of the impugned order and permission to file SLP(s) withoutcertified copy as well as plain copy of impugned order are allowed.

B

We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order(s)of the High Court. The special leave petitions are dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners requests that the petitionersbe given some reasonable time to vacate the disputed premises inquestion.

C

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the history ofthe case, we deem it appropriate to grant three months’ time tothe petitioners to vacate the premises in question subject to thecondition that the petitioners shall file an undertaking before thisCourt that they would so vacate. Such an undertaking be filed bythe petitioners within a period of two weeks from today.”

D

2. The facts leading to the filing of this Contempt Petition, in brief,are as under:

Ea) The Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited havingan approved strength of 211 members passed a Resolution dated27.12.1987 in a General Body Meeting expelling 27 membersincluding the present contempt petitioners. It appears that therewere certain resignations after such expulsion and 15 newmembers including the alleged contemnors herein were inductedFagainst the vacancies.

E

b) The expulsion of those 27 members was subject matter ofchallenge and finally by judgment and order dated 18.10.2010passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.9439 of 2003, the claim ofthose who were expelled, was accepted and following directionwas passed:

G

“31. Be that as it may, we have been informed by learnedcounsel for the parties that the Society has been taken over bythe Administrator and a large number of flats remained un-allotted. The appellants have filed the information sought by H

them under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 23.04.2008which makes it clear that 15 flats bearing Nos.14, 23, 217, 324,325, 327, 418, 421, 426, 513, 516, 619, 623 and 726 category –‘B’ and 737 category – ‘A’ remained unallotted. In order tomeet the ends of justice it is required that appellants be adjustedagainst the said un-allotted flats. However, the Society shallput a demand, if any, and the appellants are directed to makethe payment with interest in accordance with law.”

c) The newly inducted members including the alleged contemnorsthen approached this Court by way of IA No.6-7 of 2011 whichwere disposed of by this Court on 03.03.2011, recording as under:

“The applicants are permitted to move the Administrator/Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi to vindicate theirgrievance and it is for them to substantiate and establish theirrights. It is made clear that the applications shall be disposedof after hearing the parties as well as Society.”

d) The second round of litigation then began with the newly inductedmembers approaching Registrar Cooperative Societies submittinginter alia that relevant facts were concealed from this Court andit was not disclosed to this Court that pursuant to the draw of lotsheld on 20.10.2002, the newly enrolled members were put inphysical occupation of said apartments. The matter wasconsidered by the Registrar Cooperative Societies and followingorder was passed on 24.02.2012:

“08. Meetings with Administrator were held on a number ofoccasions to discuss the issue of allotment in the light of theApex Court orders dated 18.10.2010 and dated 04.03.2011 andas a consequence of those meetings, the Administrator incontinuation of his letter dated 31.10.2011 sent another letterdated 11.01.2012 informing that in view of the direction of thisoffice which were sent on 01.04.2011 for complying the ordersof Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.10.2010, the demand letterswere sent to the 14 members who were ordered to be admittedby the RCS vide his order dated 26.08.1997. Thirteen personshave deposited the amount demanded from them, however,one person, namely Shri Naurang Ram (Membership No.160)has not deposited the demanded amount. The Administrator A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

was also called in this office, who had apprised the undersignedabout the possession of society flats and the matter ofoccupancy of flat and other related issues were discussedthereafter in the light of subsequent order of Hon’ble SupremeCourt on 04.03.2011. In consequence thereof, the Administratormet the persons occupying the 15 flats which were allotted tothem in an unauthorized draw, on 01.10.2011 and 10.10.2011.On 20.10.2011 those members have also submitted documentsin their possession to the Administrator in support of their claimsof being the bonafide members of the society. All thesedocuments have been forwarded by the Administrator to thisoffice apart from forwarding the details of cheques deposited,by the 13 members. These documents were examined andthereafter, as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,15 unauthorized occupants of the flats in the society were calledfor personal hearing by the undersigned on 14.02.2012. TheAdministrator of the society Shri D.K. Mishra, IAS was alsocalled to represent the society. All 15 persons or theirrepresentatives as also the Administrator were present duringthe hearing on 14.02.2012. The applicants re-iterated that theywere allotted flats and living in the society since 2002. Thereare 06 persons who are still occupying flats and 09 have soldthose after getting possession on 20.10.2002.

09. On the basis of the records available in this office, orderspassed by the various courts as well as the Apex Court, reportof the Administrator and submissions made by the appellantsand the unauthorized occupants of the flats in I.A.No.6-7 of2011, I am of the considered opinion that the self draw held on20.10.2002 was illegal and this was never organized orregularized by this office. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ofIndia vide its order dated 18.10.2010 upheld the order dated26.08.1997 of the RCS. The operative part of the order dated,26.08.1987 of the then RCS in this regard is given below:- “in the circumstances the proposed expulsions are rejectedagainst 14 persons. The society is directed to readmit the 14persons whose names are given below:

1. Sh. Mithlesh Jain

2. Sh. Sant Lal Gupta

2. Sh. Naurang Ram

4. Sh. Virender Kumar Jain

SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. v. UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

5. Sh. Raghbir Singh

6. Sh. Om Prakash Gupta

7. Sh. Rakesh Grover8. Sh. Vijay Grover

9. Sh. Narender Kumar

10. Sh. Ram Saran

11. Sh. Vinod Kumar13. Sh. Kashmiri Lal

12. Sh. Shyam Lal14. Sh. Shiv Prasad

10. In view of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt, I direct the Society to readmit the above 14 persons asmembers of the Society. They should be issued share certificateby the Administrator of the society immediately. With respectto the flats being occupied by the applicants, who had filedI.A. Nos.6-7 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No.5439 of 2003, thesepersons were admitted as members by the Society in utterviolation of the provisions of law since there was no clearvacancies at that moment. Accordingly, their admission asmembers and consequently allotment of flats to them, cannotbe recognized and same is therefore set aside.”

e) The aforesaid order directing those 14 persons to be re-admitted, was confirmed by the Financial Commissioner in RevisionPetition Nos.119 of 2012 and 151 of 2012. The matter reachedthe High Court by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No.4202 of 2014 atthe instance of the newly inducted members. The challenge wasrejected and the following order was passed by the High Court on31.01.2017.

“16. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petitions with thedirection to the RCS to draw out a seniority list of membersafter consultation with the Administrator. The members lowerin the seniority will have to surrender and vacate the flats intheir occupation in favour of the Rakesh Grover Group (14members). We are given to understand that the memberslowest in the seniority list are in occupation of flats mentionedand recorded by the Supreme Court in paragraph 31 of theirorder dated 18[th] October, 2010. This is apparently correct andthis is the reason why they have filed W.P. (C)No.8553 of2014. They would have to vacate and handover the possessionof the flats to Rakesh Grover Group (14 Members).

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A17. The RCS will complete the aforesaid exercise within aperiod of two months from the date a copy of this order isreceived. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions aredisposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of. Nocosts.”

B(f) The order passed by the High Court was put in challengebefore this Court and the special leave petitions were dismissedby this Court on 31.03.2017. In terms of the liberty granted, thespecial leave petitioners filed appropriate undertakings to vacatethe apartments in their occupation. The undertakings were filedon 13.04.2017 and the relevant averments in that behalf are to beCfound in para no.15 of the present contempt petition as under:- “15. That as many as 12 persons have filed undertakings on13.04.2017 vide Diary No.31470 before this Hon’ble Court.The names of the persons/contemnors, filed the undertakingwith flat number are given herein below:- D

(i) Dinesh Kumar – Flat No.327

(ii) Harbinder Kaur Sarna – Flat No.623

(iii) Ritu Sethi – Flat No.325

(iv) S. Khurana (Sneh Lata Khurana) – Flat No.513

E

(v) Ritu Singh – Flat No.619

(vi) Anita Goel – Flat No.516

(vii) Trishala Jain alias S.B. Sharma – Flat No.426

(viii) Umesh Kr. Jain – Flat No.726

F

(ix) Arun Kumar Jain – Flat No.421

(x) Devender Nath Sharma – Flat No.217

(xi) Vineet Mittal – Flat No.14

(xii) Sanjay Kumar – Flat No.418"

G

3. Alleging that despite such undertakings, the alleged contemnorshad failed in vacating the apartments in question and in handing overpossession, the present contempt petition was filed. The notice wasissued on 04.08.2017 and by further order dated 25.01.2018 status quoHwas directed to be maintained.

4. It was submitted on behalf of the alleged contemnors that theyhad been inducted as new members, had paid all the instalments whichthe society had demanded, and had been in occupation of the apartmentsfor last several years. It was further submitted that the entire constructionwas undertaken on the strength of deposits made by all the membersincluding the alleged contemnors and it would result in great prejudice, ifthey were now asked to vacate the apartments after such a length oftime. It was also submitted that the land in occupation of the societywas sufficient enough where one more building could be constructedand if such possibilities were explored, the interest of the allegedcontemnors could also be taken care of. Finding substance in thesubmission, following order was passed by this Court on 25.10.2018:- “We have heard Mr. A.K. Panda, learned senior counsel appearingfor the Administrator/Society and all other learned counsel. Wedirect the Administrator to file an affidavit indicating:

(1) The extent of land available where a Tower could beconstructed;

(2) The extent of FAR available to the Society as on date;

(3) How many apartments could be constructed in the openpiece of land still available with the society?; and

(4) The technical details including the timeline and the cost ofconstruction which would be required to complete the project.

All these details shall be supported by technical appraisal by aqualified Architect. The affidavit be filed within four weeks fromtoday.”

5. Thereafter the matter appeared on 29.11.2018, when thefollowing order was passed:- “Pursuant to our order dated 25.10.2018, an affidavit has beenfiled by the Administrator of the Modern Cooperative GroupHousing Society Ltd. The documents annexed to the affidavitindicate that quotations were called for from the Architects andquotation submitted by the Design Enhance, 310, S.G. ShoppingMall, D.C. Chowk, Sector – 9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 was acceptedand work order was also issued on 20.11.2018.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Learned Counsel appearing for the administrator submitted thatthe architect’s report is expected shortly and that the matter besuitably adjourned to enable the administrator to place on recordcomplete documentation including the cost analysis as well as thenumber of apartments that could be constructed in the new building.

We accept the submission and adjourn the matter for six weeks,to enable filing of such appropriate affidavit.”

6. The subsequent order dated 10.01.2019 passed by this Courtwas as under:

“In pursuance of order dated 29.11.2018 passed by this Court,an affidavit has been filed by the Administrator of the ModernCooperative Group Housing Society Limited on 07.01.2019. Theaffidavit has enclosed an extract of the report given by the Architectwho has opined that within the FAR available for the Society,new tower can be constructed in the existing plot with 18apartments of the size of 83.46 sq.meters each. It is a matter ofrecord that there are 14 claimants involved in the matter and assuch four apartments could be constructed over and above theexisting requirement.

At this stage, we deem it appropriate to solicit the response ofthe Municipal Corporation of Delhi (North), whether such towercan be constructed and whether it would be within the FARpermissible for the society. Let a copy of this petition be servedupon the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (North) which shall fileits response within three weeks from the receipt of the notice.

We also direct the Administrator to convene a meeting of theGeneral Body of the Society so that the proposal submitted by theArchitect could be discussed in the meeting and response of theGeneral Body could be placed on record before the next date ofhearing.

Learned counsel for the alleged-contemnors shall also fileindividual affidavits of undertaking on behalf of every singlealleged-contemnor indicating his/her willingness to deposit a sumof Rupees thirty lakhs into the account of the Society so thatappropriate orders can be passed on the next date of hearing.The affidavit of undertaking must also indicate the time-line withinwhich such deposit can be made.”

7. Thereafter, affidavits were filed by all the alleged contemnorsindicating their willingness to deposit a sum of Rs.30 lakhs as stated inthe order dated 10.01.2019. A General Body meeting was convened on24.02.2019 which was attended by 73 members including 14 personswho have been litigating and are interested in getting back the possessionof the apartments, whereas the alleged contemnors, having lost the statusas members, could not vote. 43 members voted against the proposal ofhaving a new building constructed, while 30 members voted in favour ofthe proposal. Nine Postal ballots received after the meeting showedthat all nine members had cast their votes in support of the newconstruction. Thus, the voting pattern was:- 43 votes against the proposaland 39 votes in favour of the proposal.

8. The matter thereafter came up on 28.02.2019 when followingorder was passed:- “In accordance with the direction issued by this Court on10.01.2019, a General Body Meeting of the Society was held underthe Chairmanship of the Administrator on 24.02.2019. Minutesof the Meeting are enclosed in the Affidavit tendered across thebar by the Administrator. The affidavit is taken on record.

Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, learned counsel has also filed affidaviton behalf of some of the alleged contemnors pursuant to thedirections issued in the order dated 10.01.2019. 11 of the allegedcontemnors have thus filed affidavits, which are taken on record.Copies of these affidavits be given to the other side.

Further, pursuant to the direction issued on the last occasion,an affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the North DelhiMunicipal Corporation, para 3 whereof reads as under:

“3. That accordingly, on last date of hearing i.e. on 10.01.2019this Hon’ble Court has directed the Municipal Corporation ofDelhi (North), to file its response as to whether such towercan be constructed and whether it would be within the FARpermissible for the society.

In regard to the above order dated 10.01.2019, it is respectfullystated that there is no record pertaining to approved layoutthat there is no record pertaining to approved layout plan/completion plan of Modern Cooperative Group Housing SocietyLimited available in the department, so as to ascertain the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abalance FAR availing for further construction by the society.Further, it is submitted that new tower with 18 dwelling unitscan be constructed only if balance ground coverage and FARis available as against permissible ground coverage andpermissible FAR prescribed for group housing in MPD-2021under clause 4.4.3, B-Residential Plot – Group HousingBmentioning as below:

1. Maxi, Ground33.3% (in case addition ofCoverage:alteration of existing DUs foravailing balance FAR groundcoverage upto 40% may beallowed.

C

2. Maximum FAR:200

3. Height:NR (Subject to clearance fromAAI/Fire Department and otherstatutory bodies.

D

4. Parking:2.0 ECS/100 sqm built up areaand 0.5 ECS/100 sqm for EWSService Personal Housing.”

Since the Minutes of the General Body Meeting datedE24.02.2019 has taken a particular stand, we direct theAdministrator to place on record, for our perusal, completerecord with respect to the said meeting including E-mails andletters received by the Administrator in respect of said meeting.

9. We have heard Mr. S.D. Singh, learned Advocate for theFcontempt petitioners, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, learned Advocate for allegedcontemnors, Mr. Praveen Swarup, learned Advocate for the MunicipalCorporation of Delhi and all other learned Advocates. Mr. S. D. Singhvery fairly submitted that if the contempt petitioners were assured ofpossession of apartments, they would be having no objection to supportthe cause of the alleged contemnors in having a new building constructedGby the society. Consequently, the voting pattern which effectively was43 votes against the proposal and 39 votes in favour of the proposalwould then drastically change and would be 29 votes against the proposaland 53 votes in favour of the proposal.

10. Some of the salient features in the matter are:- H

1. The alleged contemnors have violated the orders passed bythis Court and despite having furnished appropriate undertakings,have failed to vacate and hand over possession. But there arecertain equities in their favour; in that they were inducted asmembers not clandestinely but against the resultant vacancies afterexpulsion of certain members, that they had paid all the instalmentsin time, that on the basis of such instalments paid by the membersincluding the alleged contemnors the construction was completed,and that they were put in possession of the apartments soonthereafter.

2. It is only as a result of the expulsion orders of the contemptpetitioners getting set aside that the alleged contemnors have tovacate their apartments and make way for the contemptpetitioners.

3. The society had raised amounts and was benefited from twosets of persons that is the alleged contemnors as well as thecontempt petitioners and the fact of the matter is that the societyis presently having funds to the tune of more than Rs.4 crores.

11. Going by the reports made by the Architect a new buildingcan be constructed with 18 apartments, which means that after satisfyingthe requirements of all the alleged contemnors there will still be someapartments left, from the sale of which money for construction can begarnered.

Furthermore, according to the Architect, within the FAR availableto it, the society can construct such new building. The MunicipalCorporation of Delhi has also in principle agreed that if FAR is available,the authority would not have any objection to grant permission forconstruction of a new building.

12. In the circumstances, though we are considering the matter incontempt jurisdiction, in our considered view ends of justice would bemet, if following directions are passed:-

a) All the alleged contemnors shall vacate their respectiveapartments on or before 31.08.2019. The apartments so vacatedshall thereafter be allotted to those persons who were directed tobe re-admitted as members in terms of para 9 of the order passedby the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 24.02.2012. Theallotment shall be done in the presence of an Official from the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in a manner knownto law.

b) Each of the alleged contemnors, if he or she desires to have anew apartment in the newly erected building, shall deposit a sumof Rs.10 lakhs with the Administrator of the Modern CooperativeGroup Housing Society Limited on or before 31.10.2019. Alongwith such deposit, an appropriate affidavit shall be filed by suchperson (s) undertaking that in case any further amount (s) are tobe deposited towards the cost of construction, he or she shallabide by such requisition scrupulously.

c) Upon such deposit and furnishing of an affidavit every suchperson shall be re-admitted in the Society as a Member.

d) Within one month from the date of this order, the Administratorshall prefer an appropriate application annexing therewith all therequired documents including plans and drawings and seekpermission to erect a new building with 18 apartments. Suchapplication shall be preferred with the concerned appropriateAuthorities including Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

(e) Municipal Corporation of Delhi which has agreed in principlethat the permission for erecting a new building can be granted,shall consider said application and take appropriate decision in thematter within one month from the date when the application ispreferred.

(f) After the construction has begun, the Administrator shall beentitled to initiate the process for having new members admittedwho are willing to deposit such sums as are required towards thecost of construction of an individual apartments which could thenbe allotted to them.

(g) The Administrator shall also be entitled to have a fresh drawof lots in the presence of an Official from the Office of Registrar,Cooperative Societies in respect of the building to be constructedso that each of those 18 apartments could be allotted to theconcerned persons including the alleged contemnors herein.

(h) The alleged contemnors shall have to find new or transitaccommodation till they are finally put in possession of theapartments so allotted to them after completion of construction.

The cost and charges in that behalf shall be borne by the allegedcontemnors and they shall not be entitled to have any amountreimbursed either from the society or from any of the members.

(i) Whether the cost of construction must come entirely from theallottees of apartments in the new building to be constructed orwhether the society would like to contribute in that behalf, is amatter which ought to be decided by the society. We may onlyobserve that the alleged contemnors had made their contributionand as a matter of fact the society has funds to the tune of morethan Rs.4 crores available with it.

13. In our view, the directions as aforesaid would not only ensurethat the contempt petitioners are put in possession of the apartments towhich they have been found to be entitled to but will also take care ofthe interests of the alleged contemnors who are required to vacate theapartments only because of the setting aside of the expulsion of thecontempt petitioners. These directions, in our considered view is theonly solution in which the interests of all can be sufficiently taken careof.

14. We, therefore, order accordingly. These Contempt Petitionsstand disposed of. No costs.

Divya Pandey

Contempt Petitions disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H