In a contempt petition alleging demolition of property despite a court order stay, the Delhi High Court held that the petitioner's breach of a reciprocal undertaking to not seek adjournment destroyed the basis for contempt. The contempt petition was dismissed.
The contempt petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SH.AAKASH SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
versus
SH. GYANESH BHARTI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aajjay Arora, Sr. Advocate/Standing Counsel with Ms. Simiran Arora and Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, ASC with Mr. Anil Kumar, for MCD
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
%
O R D E R (ORAL) 03.04.2024
CONT.CAS(C) 51/2024
1. By this petition, the petitioner alleges contempt, by the respondents/alleged contemnors, of order dated 28 July 2023, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA 136/2023, specifically of paras 14 and 15 thereof, which read thus:
“14. In view of the undertaking given by the Appellants before this Court today to the effect that (i) they will proceed with the hearing of the appeal before ATMCD, (ii) not seek any adjournment, and (iii) have further prayed for an expeditious disposal of the said appeal; the directions of the Trial court dated 16.07.2019 directing MCD to demolish the unauthorized construction in the suit property is stayed until the next date of hearing.
Signature Not Ver ified Cont. Cas..(C) 51/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 4.04.2024 19:17:10
Page 1 of 3
2. The alleged contempt, as explained by Mr. C. Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is that the MCD proceeded to demolish the petitioner’s property despite the injunction to that effect in para 14 of the order dated 28 July 2023 supra .
3. The directions in para 14 of the order dated 28 July 2023 clearly envisaged fulfilment of reciprocal obligations. The obligation of the MCD not to demolish the petitioner’s property was conditional on fulfilment, by the petitioner, of the obligation not to take adjournment on 23 August 2023 when the matter was next listed before the ATMCD. There is no dispute about the fact that, on 23 August 2023, the petitioner was unable to enter appearance and that, therefore, the matter had to be adjourned.
4. With that perishes the allegation of contempt.
5. By taking an adjournment on 23 August 2023, the petitioner failed to fulfil his side of the bargain as envisaged by para 14 of the order dated 28 July 2023. The Court is not commenting how wholesome or otherwise the act of the MCD to proceed to demolish the petitioner’s property was. It does not, however, amount to contempt in view of the adjournment taken by the petitioner from the ATMCD on 23 August 2023.
Signature Not Ver ified Cont. Cas..(C) 51/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 4.04.2024 19:17:10
Page 2 of 3
6. This contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed.
CM APPL. 1987/2024
7. This application does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
APRIL 3, 2024 rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Ver ified Cont. Cas..(C) 51/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 4.04.2024 19:17:10
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's failure to appear on 23 August 2023 defeated the reciprocal obligations that formed the basis for the stay of demolition.
Whether the demolition by MCD after the petitioner took an adjournment amounts to contempt of the previous court order.
Whether the contempt petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable given the breach of reciprocal conditions.
SH. AAKASH SHARMA
SH. GYANESH BHARTI & ORS.
C. HARI SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
