Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (10) TMI 2440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is endangering to persons living in it – Tenant thus may attend not only to repair but he may proceed with as these orders cannot be said to be passed against tenant from attending to renovation and repair - Actions of tenant are not hit by any contempt as tenant is not a party and there is no creation of third party rights - Order is to read in context it is passed, 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 Fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lding in dispute On which, an Observer categorically stated that the person in the possession of the property making further construction 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 property impugned has already been leased out in 2005 to a non-party to these proceedings, i.e., before filing this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s 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 Observation Report, the Respondents counsel submits that it is not indicated anywhere in the report that the existing building has been demolished and trying to erect new structure in the place of old structure upon which status quo was granted. The counsel has made categorical statement that repair and renovation has been taking place in the building in dispute. Therefore, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er has to be read and understood in the context it was passed, not read into something that was not there in the applications. Since the orders were passed in the context of apprehension of alienation of the asset, the letter and spirits of the orders must be limited to the context in which orders are passed. On seeing the photographs filed by the observer, it is apparent that it is an old building and this order was also passed in the year 2007,we are in 2015, already 8 years have gone by, if any construction or the building is left without any upkeep, then it is endangering to the persons living in it, therefore, the tenant may attend not only to repair, if any renovation is in necessity, he may proceed with, because these orders cannot b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Moreover, this has already observed that status quo order is limited to restrain creating third party rights. If contempt is apparent on record, then action could taken accordingly, if anybody is held liable for contempt on assumptions and conjectures, it will not only effect the property rights of the person but also human rights, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and aberration of justice. 7. The petitioners counsel relied upon Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1988 SC 127 to say that status quo means to maintain existing position as on the date of passing orders until it is revoked or modified as the case may be, interestingly, the respondent counsel also relied upon the same to say that status quo order is to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates