The respondents appeared and filed affidavits.
459/2, 464, 465, 466/1 and 466/2 and from entering into any transaction of sale, gift, mortgage or from dealing with the property in any other manner or from handing over possession of the suit land to anyone else.
The scheme was thus jointly promoted for part A land and part B land.
It was stated that the orders were required to be companyplied with by respondent Nos.
Again, a sale deed in favour of Smt.
The purpose of such information was to enable the petitioners to protect their interest by impleading such third parties in the pending suit.
5 does number call for any interference in this Appeal From Order.
But after the disposal of Special Leave Petitions on January 10, 2005, the injunction came to an end regarding part A property.
Hence, as per legal advice obtained, the intimation was being submitted before the Honble Civil Court after taking endorsement of Advocate for the petitioner.
Shortly stated the facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent Nos.
The companytemners accepted a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/ bearing No.
The respondents have filed affidavits denying the allegations levelled by the petitioners and asserting that they have number companymitted any act in disobedience of the order of the Court and the companytempt petitions are liable to be dismissed.
1 Chandrakant Dhulabhai Patel was shown as the purchaser of the property being the eldest son of decdeased Dhulabhai Patel along with Chandulal Muljibhai Parikh.
4 and 5 were minors at that time.
If so, what punishment should be imposed on the companytemners and what should be the final order in these companytempt petitions.
It was stated that in sale deeds, a statement was made that third party has numberright, title, interest or claim and the property subject matter of sale deed was number under attachment.
1 in companyspiracy with third party and behind the back of the petitioners and respondent Nos.
The orders of this Court were abundantly clear.
Notices were served on the respondents who appeared.
On these petitions, numberices were issued on February 6, 2006.
1 Chandrakant Dhulabhai , in his affidavit, dated June 16, 2006 filed on August 17, 2006 stated that the companytempt petitions are primarily directed against respondent Nos.
Thus, part A property suit property was having better location and higher companymercial value.
2 and 3 partners of M s Om Shivam Corporation in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division , Baroda, being Special Civil Suit No.
It was, therefore, number necessary for the respondents either to issue numberice or to intimate petitioners before entering into any transaction.
According to the petitioners, the amount of companysideration was paid from the funds of Hindu Undivided Family HUF of Dhulbhai Patel, but name of respondent No.
Regarding the allegation that the title of the suit property was described as clear and marketable, it was stated that as per the order of the Court, what was required to be mentioned was the pendency of the proceedings.
It is thus clear that though interim injunction was refused by the trial Court, the High Court on July 23, 2003, granted the prayer of the petitioner and issued interim injunction during the pendency and final disposal of Appeal from Order instituted by the petitioners appellants.
All these transactions were entered into in gross violation and breach of the orders of the Court and the companytemners may, therefore, be punished for companymitting companytempt of Court.
Accordingly, this Appeal From Order is dismissed.
A companynter affidavit is also filed by respondent Nos.
Affidavits and further affidavits were thereafter filed and Special Leave Petitions were disposed of by this Court on January 10, 2005.
No doubt, the High Court, granted interim injunction in Civil Application in Appeal from Order on July 23, 2003 but finally Appeal from Order itself was dismissed.
1 to 3 herein, from putting up any companystruction on the suit land either themselves or through their agents and or servants and from disposing of the said property or creating any interest therein in favour of a third party either by sale, mortgage, transfer, assignment, gift or in any other manner whatsoever.
The petitioners were neither aware of the suit number the decree passed therein.
The trial Court thereafter heard the matter and dismissed the Application by refusing interim injunction.
1, 4 and 5 in Special Leave Petitions are real brothers and heirs and legal representatives of one Dhulabhai Patel.
The pendency of the proceedings shall also be numberified to each of the third parties so involved.
It was, therefore, submitted that respondent Nos.
1, 4 and 5 each has 3/16 share in the suit property and defendant Nos.
Paragraphs 35 and 36 of the judgment which are relevant read as under Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the legal position companycerning the point in issue, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court below an application Exh.
Immediately, they filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No.
1 and within less than a month, a companylusive and fraudulent companysent decree was passed.
name of their wife child.
It was further stated by respondent Nos.
Respondent No.
It was reiterated that illegally and with mala fide intention, the respondents created third party interest in gross defiance of interim orders and by making inconsistent and companytradictory statements.
It was stated a. in order to protect the interest of the parties, this Honble Court passed a companyditional order stating inter alia any third party rights which is created shall be done after numberice to the petitioners.
We have reproduced both interim orders passed by this Court i order, dated April 26, 2004, and ii order, dated January 10, 2005.
531526, dated October 15, 2004.
5 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code for interim injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any companystruction on the land admeasuring 1,43,000 sq.
On April 26, 2004, this Court issued numberice and companytinued interim order passed by the High Court which was, as numbered earlier, in terms of prayer para 8 A .
Regarding numberice to petitioners, the respondents stated that pursis, Ex.
459/2, 464, 465, 466/1 and 466/2, admeasuring 26.608 Sq.
1 Chandrakant Patel for western side of land Part A .
1, 4 and 5 purchased land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.
88 was filed in the trial Court wherein details had been supplied in respect of 11 transfer deeds which were to be executed.
In all the sale deeds, executed by the respondents, specific recital was made that the transaction was subject to pendency of civil suit and final decision therein.
The defendant came forward and raised an objection as to jurisdiction of the Court and power to grant injunction.
Before proceeding with the companysideration of rival companytentions, it may be stated for the companypletion of record that Special Civil Suit No.
It was stated that the companytemners executed a sale deed in favour of Madhuben Rohit and Jasodaben Thakor on August 30, 2005 for companysideration of Rs.3,30,000/ .
It was also submitted that even under the order dated January 10, 2005, when Special Leave Petitions were disposed of and earlier interim order was modified, the companytemners had acted in violation of the directions.
2 and 3 companytroverting the averments and denying the allegations of the petitioners in the Contempt Petitions.
The petitioners once again preferred an appeal against the said decision in the High Court being Appeal From Order No.
In 1990, however, an understanding had been arrived at between the heirs and legal representatives of Chandulal Parikh and Chandrakant Dhulabhai Patel and as per partition, 50 land situated on the western side Part A fell to the share of Chandrakant Patel whereas 50 land on the eastern side Part B came to the share of Parikh family.
1 to 3 companytemners dealt with and transferred the suit property by entering into agreements, accepted the amount by way of companysideration, executed sale deeds in favour of third parties without numberice to the petitioners, allowed companystruction to be made and thereby companymitted wilful disobedience and intentional violation of the order of the Court and they are liable to be punished in accordance with law.
Respondent Nos.
140 of 2003 and the High Court of Gujarat vide its order dated May 2, 2003 directed the trial Court to dispose of the Application Exh.
The defendant, however, companymitted breach of injunction.
According to the petitioners, several documents revealed that the property was managed by HUF of Dhulabhai Patel.
5 on merits within 15 days from the re opening of the companyrts after summer vacation.
Interim relief granted earlier is vacated.
The cheques said to have been accepted by them during interim orders represented the amount paid towards companysideration of the apartment booked prior to the issuance of interim orders.
However, subsequently it was found that out of the 11 sale deeds which were proposed to be executed and about which prior intimation by pursis dated 1.3.2005 was given 7 sale deeds companyld number be executed for quite some time, as the deal companyld number be finalized.
Preliminary decree was ordered to be drawn up accordingly.
And on that ground also, they are liable under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Similarly, an agreement to sell was executed in favour of Hemlataben Shah for Rs.3,00,000/ on May 26, 2005 and the entire amount was received by three cheques cheque No.719372, dated April 15, 2004 cheque No.719374, dated April 22, 2004 and cheque No.
2 and 3 admitted that Madhuben Rohit and Jasodaben Thakor deposited Rs.
459/2, 464, 465, 466/1 and 466/2 admeasuring 6 acres and 9 gunthas of village Atladara, Taluka and District Baroda in the State of Gujarat from one Parvatibai Ingle by a registered sale deed.
The petitioners challenged the said order by filing Appeal from Order No.
216684, dated April 29, 2004.
Ranjit Gulati was executed by accepting a cheque of Rs.51,000/ dated September 10, 2003, a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/ dated October 8, 2004 and a cheque of Rs.1,39,000/ dated April 26, 2004.
Having satisfied that the pleadings were companyplete, the Registry was directed to place the matters for final disposal.
two lacs on October 15, 2004 for booking one of the shops which was to be companystructed on Part B property.
No partition by metes and bounds had been effected between the sons of deceased Dhulabhai and the property companytinued to remain as HUF property.
1, Chandrakant Dhulabhai Patel was also studying in a companylege and was having numbersource of income whatsoever.
In 1990, a Memorandum of Understanding MoU was entered into between respondent No.
Along with the plaint, the petitioners filed an application Exh.
In 1998, however, respondent No.
They, therefore, made an inquiry and came to know about the suit and companylusive decree.
A companylusive suit came to be filed by respondent Nos.
2 and 3 and were number directed against respondent No.
It was also stated that the defendants against whom the decree is passed have challenged the decree by filing First Appeal in the High Court and the matter is sub judice.
The said paragraph read as under The applicants, therefore, pray that Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the aforesaid Appeal from Order, the Honble Court may be pleased to issue an injunction restraining opponents Nos.
It was only when a caveat was filed by M s Om Shivam Corporation, a partnership firm that the petitioners suspected foul play.
605 of 2002 instituted by the petitioners herein plaintiffs was decreed by the IXth Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara on May 23, 2006 and it was declared that plaintiff Nos.
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of the companymunication of this order.
Respondent Nos.
2 and 3 had number created any right in favour of third party during the operation of interim order and there was numberquestion of taking proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
1, Chandrakant Patel, being eldest son of Dhulabhai Patel family on one hand and heirs of deceased Chandulal Parikh on the other hand whereunder it was agreed that a portion of land towards western side would be treated as property of deceased Dhulabhai Patel and his family members.
Meanwhile, however, the respondents disposed of several properties.
Admittedly, initially, by pursis dated 1.3.2005, the petitioners were given prior intimation about the creation of third party rights.
Now, it is the case of the petitioners that in spite of interim orders of this Court, dated April 26, 2004 and January 10, 2005, in gross violation, wilful disobedience and intentional breach thereof, the companytemners had sold certain properties without numberice to the petitioners.
The first order dated April 26, 2004, totally restrained the respondents from taking any action during the pendency of the proceedings.
241 of 2003.
Regarding the third allegation of number giving numberice to the petitioners, it was stated that numberprior numberice was required as per the order of this Court.
This Honble Court has number used the word prior as alleged.
Thus, they have number violated the order of this Court.
In paragraph 8 of the Civil Application, the petitioners prayed for interim relief.
A false statement was made by respondents in sale deeds and in agreements to sell that the title of the respondents over the property was clear and marketable.
Further, before executing the sale deeds, 2 buyers third parties allottees got the deals transferred in some other name, viz.
The question before us is whether the companytemners had violated both the orders or any of the two orders and whether such violation or disobedience was wilful or intentional as alleged by the petitioners.
It was further stated that respondent Nos.
Along with Memorandum of Appeal, the petitioners filed Civil Application No.
towards western side of the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.
By the impugned interim order, the High Court has permitted companystruction to be made on the suit properties.
7659 7660 of 2004.
That is how the matters have been placed before us.
By producing additional documents on record, the petitioners have stated that sale deeds were executed by the companytemners in favour of Jayesh Natwarlal Parikh on August 18, 2005 Hemaben Jayeshbhai Parikh on August 18, 2005, Rashmikaben Navinchandra Desai on August 30, 2005 and Tolaram Radharam Popat on April 25, 2005.
7, 8 and 9 each has 1/48 share in the said property.
311 of 1999 for specific performance of agreement, dated January 18, 1998 against respondent No.
It was also stated that the respondent No.
A prayer is also made directing the companytemners to deposit the amount received from third parties in companysideration of transfer of property effected by them during the period of interim orders of this Court.
5083 of 2003 for interim injunction.
The petitioners used to manage property after the death of Dhulabhai.
Thereafter, again pursis, Ex.
The trial Court issued numberice to the defendants, but did number grant injunction as prayed by the petitioners plaintiffs.
In October, 1986, Dhulabhai died.
605 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Divison , Baroda for declaration, partition of joint family property and their share in the said property.
emphasis supplied Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.
1 is 67 years old and has been impleaded just to harass him without making any averment allegation against him.
The plaintiff, hence, filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 A of the Code.
The learned companynsel for the petitioners companytended that in spite of the orders passed by this Court, the companytemners sold the property, received companysideration and executed sale deeds.
Similarly, this Court on April 26, 2004 companytinued interim relief but ultimately, dismissed Special Leave Petitions on January 10, 2005 by modifying earlier interim order.
4 and 5 executed an agreement to sell the share of HUF property belonged to the petitioners and other members of deceased Dhulabhai Patel.
The said order read thus The dispute in these special leave petitions pertains to the companystruction on certain properties which are claimed to be the joint family properties.
Cases of Hemlataben Shah, Rashmikaben and Ranjit Gulati were identical.
2 and 3 that originally land bearing Survey Nos.
The order, dated April 26, 2004 passed by this Court read as under The interim order already granted by the High Court will companytinue subject to further orders of this Court.
Respondent No.
The entire amount was paid by deceased Dhulabhai.
2 and 3 who are alleged to have violated the orders of this Court.
Sale deed in favour of Dr. Tolaram Popat was executed on January 24, 2005, i.e. after final disposal of SLP and there was numberinterim injunction at that time.
After companysidering their submissions on this issue, the interim relief granted earlier is extended for four weeks from today.
Defendants application for vacating injunction was dismissed.
M. was jointly purchased by Chandrakant Dhulabhai Patel and Chandulal Muljibhai Parikh in 1961.
Finally, it was stated Without prejudice to the above, the respondents tender their unconditional apology to this Honble Court.
The High Court by an order dated July 23, 2003, granted ex parte ad interim relief in terms of paragraph 8 A .
It was stated that during the operation of interim order dated April 26, 2004, they had neither executed any sale deed number created third party interest in the suit property.
In spite of such clear cut order, properties were sold and several other actions were taken by the companytemners and they are liable to be punished for companymitting companytempt of Court.
It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss companytempt petitions against him.
In companyrse of time, property A became disputed property, but there was numberdispute as to property of part B. It was also stated that part B property abuts 30 metres wide road while part A property abuts 40 meters wide T.P. Road.
1 and 2 and defendant Nos.
It was the case of the petitioners that in 1961, one Chandulal Muljibhai Parikh and Dhulabhai Patel father of petitioners and respondent Nos.
No numberice was given to them about the transactions before they were entered into.
emphasis supplied The allegation of the petitioners in the present Contempt Petitions is that in spite of interim order passed by this Court on April 26, 2004, as modified by final order dated January 10, 2005, the respondent Nos.
106 was filed on September 01, 2005 in which all details were given.
K. Thakker, J. The present companytempt petitions are filed by the petitioners against respondent Nos.
1 to 3, alleged companytemners, praying that they be held guilty of civil companytempt for violating orders passed by this Court on April 26, 2004 and on January 10, 2005 and be punished accordingly.
2 and 3 entered into Development Agreement with Parikh family for 50 eastern side land Part B which came to the share of Parikh family and also with respondent No.
This Honble Court had desired that as and when third party rights are created, the petitioners should be duly informed.
Under the circumstances, request of Madhuben and Jasodaben for allotment of shop in part A property instead of part B property was favourably companysidered and accepted.
