agreements which Respondent Nos.5 to 7 had allegedly
entered into for sale of the flats. Further direction
was given that after the construction was completed and
the occupancy certificate was granted by the
Corporation, the Court Receiver should induct the
Appellants in the flats as the agents of the Court
Receiver but without demanding any security or royalty.
It is alleged that in gross violation of the said
order, the Respondents have created third party rights
before occupation certificate was granted by the
Corporation. Show cause notice was issued by this Court
by order dated 6th March, 2007.
4.Mr.Khera, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioners vehemently urged that after the
contempt petition was filed, the Respondents had filed
review petition and in the said review petition, it was
specifically admitted that the Plaintiffs had taken
possession of the suit flats without obtaining
permission of the Court Receiver. He submitted that
the contention of the Respondents in the affidavit in
reply that the contempt petition was barred by law of
limitation as laid down under section 20 of the
Contempt of Courts Act was incorrect since the
Plaintiffs had learnt about the alleged contempt in the
Court Receiver's report dated 8.4.2006 and, thereafter,
within one year from the said knowledge of the report,
contempt petition has been filed.
