AMRISH ARORA Vs. RAMESHKUMAR SACHDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties. Perused the record and proceedings and the relevant documents.

(2.) This Contempt Petition is filed by the petitioner, who was defendant No.2 in Short Cause Suit Nos.272/2008 and 273/2008. The said suits were filed in the City Civil Court, Mumbai by the respondent restraining defendant No.1 - Kaloomal Shorimal Sachdev Rangwala Pvt.Ltd. and other defendants from calling Extraordinary General Meeting on 9.2.2008 and from restraining the present petitioner from acting as Chairman of the EGM. On 7.6.2008, the suit was disposed of and decreed as per the consent terms filed by the parties. According to the petitioner, i.e. original defendant No.2, the respondent herein failed to comply with the consent terms and has committed breach of undertakings given to the Court and thereby has committed contempt of the Court. The respondent has filed affidavit in reply denying that he has committed any breach of the said undertaking or has intentionally disobeyed the orders or has failed to comply with the consent terms. According to him, the petitioner himself was silent for about two years after filing of the consent terms and had not fulfilled certain obligations under the said consent terms and therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner also to fulfill his obligations and undertakings under the said consent terms. According to him, no contempt was committed by the respondent when this petition was filed before this Court. The petitioner has also filed Execution Petition before the Civil Court for execution of the decree as per the consent terms and the proceedings in the said execution proceedings are going on and therefore, there is no reason to take any action against the petitioner for contempt of the Court. Several other contentions are raised against tenability of the contempt petition, but they are not necessary for decision of the matter.

(3.) To appreciate the rival contentions, particularly the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has committed contempt of the Court by violation of the consent terms and breach of undertakings, it will be necessary to state certain facts in brief.