Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mahendra Kumar Johari Versus Johari Jewels (P.) Ltd.

Construction to asset – Passed status quo order – Construction over building whereupon status quo granted is nothing but wilful disobedience of orders passed – Respondent contends that property impugned leased out in 2005 to a non-party and no order has been passed over this tenancy - It is not indicated anywhere in Observation Report that existing building has been demolished and new structure erected in place of old structure upon which status quo was granted - Held That:- Photographs filed by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssed, not beyond context - Since renovation will add value to property, same cannot be considered as detriment to interest of anybody – Decided in favour of Respondent. - CONTEMPT APPLICATION NO. 271 OF 2014, COMPANY PETITION NO. 128 (ND) OF 2006 - Dated:- 28-7-2015 - B.S.V. PRAKASH KUMAR, J. For The Petitioner : Karan Malhotra and Ms. Manisha Chaudhary, Advocates For The Respondent : Ms. Pooja M. Saigal and Shashank Raj, Advocates ORDER 1. The Petitioners filed this Contempt Application against .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

07; but it is on CA 89/2007 moved by the petitioner. Since status quo order has been subsisting till date, it must be read as an order passed to maintain existing position until termination of those orders. Since it is an order of status quo, it shall not be construed as an order limited to alienation or creating third party rights, it is in fact, an order to maintain existing position as on the date of order intact. Therefore, the construction over the building whereupon status quo granted is n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion to the building in existence, therefore the Observer stated that the construction has been taking place over the building whereupon status quo order has been passed. Therefore, it is quite evident that the Respondents disobeyed the orders of this Bench dated 1.3.2007. 3. To which, the Counsel for the Respondents submits that CLB passed order of status quo on 23.2.2007 on CA 70/2007 moved by Respondents and on 1.3.2007 moved by the petitioners as stated above . The Counsel submits that the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat CA (paras 4,5 & 7 of the CA) with an apprehension that the petitioners side was likely to creat third party rights, in this, context, this Bench passed an order dated 23.2.2007 to maintain status quo in relation to the property in dispute. The counsel says it is not an order passed when the tenant making any construction, it is an order passed in the context when the petitioners were negotiating with private parties to create third parties. Likewise when the petitioners moved CA 89/2007 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ird parties. The orders being passed in the context of restraint over alienating the property, the Respondents counsel submits the same cannot be construed as an order to restrain the tenant attending to repair/maintenance work to the building constructed 50 years ago. She says on joint reading of these two orders, there can be no occasion to understand that these orders dated 23.2.2007 and 1.3.2007 are to restrain the tenant attending to repairing work over the property in dispute. On the Obser .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

she prays this Bench for dismissal of this Contempt Application She also submits that whatever construction that has been going on is strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement entered with the tenant. She further submits that the Petitioners have not obtained any restraint order to keep the terms and conditions of lease agreement in abeyance. 5. On hearing the submissions, it is pertinent to look into the orders passed by this Bench and effect of them, before g .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

RT was to take steps for auction of the property, in that CA also, this Bench passed another status quo order dated 1.3.2007 directing the Respondents to maintain status quo as ordered on 23.2.20O7. The context for seeking status quo in both the applications when the parties had apprehension third party right could be created over the asset, therefore the status quo order has to be read and understood in the context it was passed, not read into something that was not there in the applications. S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enant may attend not only to repair, if any renovation is in necessity, he may proceed with, because these orders cannot be said to be passed against the tenant from attending to renovation and repair. Moreover, these two orders were passed in 2007, ignoring the fact that the tenant, who is possessed of the property, is not a party to this proceeding, somehow these orders are in force for the last 8 years, of course, now 1 am not on it. 6. Now the Petitioners filed this CA 271/2014 to initiate c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

party rights, here there is no creation of third party rights. I must also observe that contempt proceedings are not simplicitor civil proceedings, it has punitive consequence, therefore, whenever contempt proceedings are initiated by the court, it has to be extra caution in allowing contempt application. However, this Bench hereby observes that the work happening to the building in dispute is not in wilful disobedience to the orders passed by the Bench. It is not the case of the petitioners tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version