Disposed

Smt. Adarsh Bhalla Deceased through Lrs & Ors. v. Lt. Col. Atul Mani Chopra & Ors.

Delhi HC30 Sept 2024CONT.CAS(C)/1438/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a contempt petition for alleged disobedience of a direction to secure funds and an interim order not to leave the country. The Court disposed of the contempt petition as no wilful disobedience was found. It also handled substitution of legal heirs in connected appeals after the principal appellant died, ordering service on the deceased's sons.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; legal heirs of appellant Atul Mani Chopra to be impleaded in pending appeals; notice to be served on appellant's sons.

Smt. Adarsh Bhalla Deceased through Lrs & Ors… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4 to 6

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CONT.CAS(C) 1438/2022, CM APPL. 7026/2023 & CM APPL. 51054/2023 SMT. ADARSH BHALLA DECEASED THROUGH LRS & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Samvartika Pathak and Ms. Mansi Jain, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

LT. COL. ATUL MANI CHOPRA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohit Oberoi, Mr. Umang Bhatia and Mr. Paramjeet Bhati, Advocates for R-4.

¶6

- FAO 448/2019, CM APPL. 49512/2019, CM APPL. 4951449515/2019, CM APPL. 25239/2021 & CM APPL. 10776/2023 ATUL MANI CHOPRA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Oberoi, Mr. Umang Bhatia and Mr. Paramjeet Bhati, Advocates for LR-1 of appellant.

¶7

versus

¶8

ADARSH BHALLA (DECEASED) THR LRS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Samvartika Pathak and Ms. Mansi Jain, Advocates.

¶9

- RFA 980/2019, CM APPL. 49436/2019, CM APPL. 49438/2019, CM APPL. 35802/2021, CM APPL. 38065/2021, CM APPL. 1999/2022, CM APPL. 17646-17647/2022, CM APPL. 11461/2023, CM APPL. 44088/2023 & CM APPL. 46177/2023 K.C CHOPRA & SONS HUF & ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rohit Oberoi, Mr. Umang Bhatia and Mr. Paramjeet Bhati, Advocates for LR-1 of appellant No.2.

¶10

CONT.CAS(C) 1438/2022 and connected matters

¶11

Page 1 of 6

¶12

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 04:26:32

¶13

versus

¶14

ADARSHA BHALLA (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS

¶15

.....Respondents Through: Ms. Samvartika Pathak and Ms. Mansi Jain, Advocates.

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶17

O R D E R % 30.09.2024

¶18

CONT.CAS(C) 1438/2022

¶19

The petitioner alleges contempt of an order dated 18.01.2022, passed by this Court in RFA 980/2019.

¶20

The appeal was filed by two appellants, Mr. K.C. Chopra & Sons Hindu Undivided Family [“HUF”], and its karta - Mr. Atul Mani Chopra. The appeal is directed against a judgment of the Trial Court dated 29.08.2018, dismissing a suit for declaration and cancellation of a will dated 04.01.1989, allegedly executed by late Mr. K.C. Chopra. The petitioners in this contempt petition are the respondents in the appeals.

¶21

By the order dated 18.01.2022, the Court passed the following operative directions:

¶22

“6. In view of the judgment dated 29.08.2018, the appellant is bound to secure the money lying in the account of M/s.K C Chopra & Sons HUF as on 29.08.2018.

¶23

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued the entire school record show the appellant was very much an adopted son of late Shri K C Chopra and even he talks about two settlements between the parties wherein he was authorised to conduct the business of M/s.K C Chopra & Sons HUF.

¶24

8. Nevertheless, there exist a judgment against the appellant therein

¶25

CONT.CAS(C) 1438/2022 and connected matters

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

¶28

and he needs to protect the amount which he had withdrawn from the account of M/s.K C Chopra & Sons HUF. Let the appellant file an affidavit stating as to how much amount was lying in the account of M/s.K C Chopra & Sons HUF as on 29.08.2018 and dates of withdrawal of such amounts and how he intends to secure such an amount since there exist a judgment against him. Let above affidavit be filed by appellant within four weeks from today with an advance copy thereof to the learned counsel for respondents.

¶29

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits till the next date of hearing, the appellant is not intending to leave the country without prior permission of this Court.”

¶30

It is undisputed that Mr. Atul Mani Chopra did file an affidavit in compliance with the aforesaid order. However, the submission of Ms. Samvartika Pathak, learned counsel for the contempt petitioner, is that the affidavit was not in terms of the order, insofar as it did not provide any means of security for the entire amount of the judgment. Instead, the affidavit dated 08.04.2022 inter-alia stated as follows:

¶31

“ 7. That by the end of 2016, KC Chopra & Sons, HUF had received the sale consideration from Dr. Ruchi Srivastava, the purchaser of the property bearing No.C-354, Defence Colony, New Delhi and also the amount equivalent to the last paid rent in pursuance to the settlements which was approximately of Rs15,33,60,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores Thirty Three Lacs Sixty Thousand Only). That, upon credit of such a huge amount and declaration to the Income Tax Department were made. The Capital Gain tax was deducted amounting Rs.3,58,14,674/- (Rupees Three Crores Fifty Eight Lacs Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Four Only) and thereafter, Income Tax for FYs - 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, amounting to Rs.1,29,92,205/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Nine Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred and Five only) were deposited.

¶32

8. That the balance as on 03.05.2019 was Rs.13,71,41,394/- in the Saving Bank Accounts no.31067835353 in the name of KC Chopra & Sons HUF with State Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi. The deponent say that the. said amount was divided amongst the coparceners of the HUF as per my knowledge, whereby, it was divided in four parts being an equal amount of Rs.3,42,84,400/- (Rupees Three Crores Forty Two Lacs. Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred only).

¶33

xxx xxx xxx

¶34

11. Thus, I, the Deponent can give surety and undertaking for the amount

¶35

CONT.CAS(C) 1438/2022 and connected matters

¶36

Page 3 of 6

¶37

¶38

which has been received by the deponent and wife Smt. Kiran. Chopra upon the dissolution of the HUF in compliance of the order dated 18.01.2022, to the extent that as and when ultimately the matter attains finality and in that case, it is held against the deponent that the alleged amount is withdrawn, by the deponent wrongfully, the deponent shall be liable to pay the amount as to be decided by this Hon'ble Court by ultimate decision in this case by the competent court of jurisdiction. ”

¶39

In the contempt petition, the contempt petitioner has arrayed Mr. Atul Mani Chopra, his two sons, and his wife as respondents. It is the contention of Ms. Pathak that all four persons have benefited from amounts lying to the credit of the HUF.

¶40

Mr. Atul Mani Chopra has died on 01.01.2023, during the pendency of the contempt petition.

¶41

The order of this Court dated 21.03.2022 in RFA 980/2019, in its operative directions, required filing of an affidavit by the appellants in the appeal, i.e., HUF and Mr. Atul Mani Chopra. The affidavit was in fact filed. Ms. Pathak contends that the contents of the affidavit give rise to an apprehension that the assets of the HUF have been dissipated by its coparceners to the detriment of the respondents in the appeal. These facts may well give rise to consideration of the interim arrangement to be passed in the appeals, but, on balance, I do not find any reason to proceed with the contempt proceedings. Contempt proceedings can be instituted only if there is a wilful and manifest disobedience of a clear and unambiguous order of the Court. In the present case, the directions were for filing of an affidavit, stating the appellant’s intention with regard to security, and recording of a statement that the appellant will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. There was no other injunction or interim order. The withdrawal of the amounts also occurred

¶42

CONT.CAS(C) 1438/2022 and connected matters

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

¶45

prior to the date of the order.

¶46

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not consider it appropriate to keep the contempt proceedings pending. The contempt petition is, therefore, disposed of. However, it is made clear that this will not affect the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending appeals, including with regard to the interim arrangements that ought to prevail during the pendency of the appeals.

¶47

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶48

FAO 448/2019, CM APPL. 49512/2019, CM APPL. 4951449515/2019, CM APPL. 25239/2021 & CM APPL. 10776/2023 and RFA 980/2019, CM APPL. 49436/2019, CM APPL. 49438/2019, CM APPL. 35802/2021, CM APPL. 38065/2021, CM APPL. 1999/2022, CM APPL. 17646-17647/2022, CM APPL. 11461/2023, CM APPL. 44088/2023 & CM APPL. 46177/2023

¶49

Both these appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 29.08.2018, by which the learned Trial Court has granted probate of a will dated 04.01.1989 of late Mr. K.C. Chopra, and dismissed the suit filed by the HUF and Mr. Atul Mani Chopra, claiming to be its karta, for declaration and cancellation of the same will.

¶50

Mr. Atul Mani Chopra has died during the pendency of the appeals. His legal heirs took no steps to have themselves impleaded, but the respondents have filed CM. APPL. 10776/2023 in FAO 448/2019 and CM APPL. 11461/2023 in RFA 980/2019 for substitution of three legal heirs of late Mr. Atul Mani Chopra:

¶51

Mrs. Kiran Chopra (Wife) W/o Lt. Col. Atul Mani Chopra, 8/1, Atur Park, 5 Koregaon Road, Pune – 411001.

¶52

CONT.CAS(C) 1438/2022 and connected matters

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

¶55

Mr. Vivek Chopra (Son) S/o Lt. Col. Atul Mani Chopra, 8/1, Atur Park, 5 Koregaon Road, Pune – 411001.

¶56

Mr. Vikram Chopra (Son) S/o Lt. Col. Atul Mani Chopra, 8/1, Atur Park, 5 Koregaon Road, Pune – 411001.

¶57

Mrs. Kiran Chopra, wife of late Mr. Atul Mani Chopra, has filed a reply to CM. APPL. 10776/2023 in FAO 448/2019, stating that she does not have any idea about the case, but wishes to be impleaded as the appellant in place of her late husband.

¶58

The reply also states that she has no knowledge of the whereabouts of her two sons, and is not able to represent them or accept service of any summons on their behalf.

¶59

Having regard to the nature of the disputes, particularly to the fact that a probate order is also in issue, it is necessary to serve notice of these appeals upon the sons of the late appellant. The appellants are directed to file appropriate applications for the purpose of service upon the sons of the late appellant.

¶60

List on 13.02.2025.

¶61

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶62

SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 SS/

¶63

CONT.CAS(C) 1438/2022 and connected matters

¶64

Page 6 of 6

¶65

Smt. Adarsh Bhalla Deceased through Lrs & Ors. v. Lt. Col. Atul Mani Chopra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Adarsh Bhalla Deceased through Lrs & Ors. v. Lt. Col. Atul Mani Chopra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mumtaz Ali Vs Gyanesh Bharti & Ors.

Fis Payment Solutions Services India Private Limited Vs Ms. Garima, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 9.1 New Delhi

Ranbir Singh Vs Anish Dayal Singh

Sunil Mehra Vs Ms Gyanesh Bharti and Anr.

Ms Gautam Pathak Vs Manoj Kumar Assistant Commissioner R P Cell

Krishna Kumar Meena and Ors. Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary and Anr.

Dr Praveen Singh Vs Dr Ashish Goyal & Anr.

Arun Goel Vs Rakhi Choudhary & Ors.

Mange Ram ( Since Deceased) Thr Lrs & Anr. Vs Ram Rati & Ors.

Tarvan Kumar Vs Sdmc and Ors.

Mange Ram (Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs Rakesh Sharma & Ors.

Nupur Agarwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sat Pal Vs Pinki