- (1.) A plot of land was put to auction by the Delhi Development Authority (D. D. A.) in October 1980. Skipper Construction Company (Skipper) offered the highest bid in a sum of Rs. 9.82 crores. It was supposed to be a record bid at that time. According to the conditions of auction, twenty five percent of the amount was payable immediately and the rest within ninety days. Skipper deposited the twenty five percent but did not deposit the balance. It asked for extension repeatedly and it was granted repeatedly. As many as seven extensions were granted spread over the period January, 1981 to April, 1982. Since Skipper failed to deposit the balance consideration even within the last extended period, proceedings were taken for cancelling the bid. Skipper went to Court and on May 29, 1992 obtained stay of cancellation. D. D. A. applied for vacating the stay. Nothing happened but usual adjournments. Skipper was simultaneously making representations to D. D. A. to give him further time. In January 1983, D. D. A. constituted a committee to consider the request of Skipper and other similar requests and to devise a formula for ensuring timely payments by such purchasers. The committee reported that cancellation of bids in such matters usually land D. D. A. in protracted litigation and suggested that to enable them to pay the monies due to D. D. A., the purchasers be given permission to commence development/construction on the plot (though possession as such be not delivered) subject to the condition that the property in the land would remain with the D. D. A. until the entire consideration is paid; if the entire consideration is not paid according to the revised schedule, the D. D. A. should be entitled to re-enter the plot and take it over along with the construction, if any, made thereon. (The idea was to enable the purchasers to undertake development and go on with the construction which would make it easy for them to sell the space in the building being constructed and thus raise funds for paying to D. D. A.) The committee recommended further that a revised agreement be obtained from such purchasers incorporating the above terms. When called upon to execute the revied agreement, in 1984, Skipper raised all sorts of objections and executed it only in the year 1987. Even before permission to enter upon the plot and to make construction thereon was granted under the revised agreement, Skipper appears to have been selling the place in the proposed building to various persons and receiving monies. Once it got the permission to enter upon the plot and to make construction thereon, it became all the more easy for it to sell the space in the proposed buildings. It did not pay the first installment under the revised agreement in time but only after some delay. It did not pay the second instalment. Bank guarantees furnished by it in terms of revised agreement were also found to be defective. Every time the D. D. A. thought of cancelling the agreement on account of the said defaults, an argument was put forward that it would cause great hardship to hundreds of persons who have purchased space in the proposed building and that they would be deprived of their hard-earned monies. Skipper has been making some small token payments for time of time meanwhile. While the endless correspondence and discussions were going on between Skipper and D. D. A., Skipper went to Delhi High Court by way of Writ a Petition, C. W. No. 2371 of 1989, asking for a writ of mandamus to the D. D. A. to sanction the building plans or in the alternative to grant permission to him to start construction at his risk. On March 19, 1990, the High Court passed an order permitting Skipper to commence construction in accordance with the sanctioned plans subject to deposit of a sum of Rupees twenty lakhs in two instalments and Rs. 1, 94,40,000/- within one month. Against the said order, D. D. A. came to this Court by way of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 6338 and 6339 of 1990. Meanwhile, Writ Petition (C) No. 2371 of 1989 came up for final hearing on December 21, 1990. The Delhi High Court made an order on that day directing Skipper to pay to D. D. A. a sum of Rs. 8,12,88,798/- within thirty days and to stop all further construction with effect from January 9, 1991 till the said payment was made. It was provided that in default of such payment, the licence (revised dated August 11, 1987) would stand determined and D. D. A. would be entitled to re-enter the plot. Reasons for the order were given on January 14, 1991. Skipper failed to deposit the amount as per direction of the High Court. It approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 196 of 1991. On January 29, 1991, this Court granted an interim order subject to Skipper depositing Rs. 2.5 crores within one month and another sum of Rs. 2.5 crores before April 8, 1991. Skipper was expressly prohibited from inducting any person in the building and from creating any rights in favour of third parties. In spite of the said prohibitory orders form this Court, Skipper issued an advertisement on February 4, 1991 in the leading newspapers of Delhi inviting persons to purchase the space in the proposed building. It published such advertisements repeatedly. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 196 of 1991 was ultimately dismissed on January 25, 1993, whereafter, D. D. A. re-entered the plot and took physical possession of property on February 10,1993 along with the building thereon free from all encumbrances in terms of the revised agreement/licence and as provided in the orders of the Delhi High Court dated December 21, 1990/January 14, 1991. It also forfeited the amounts paid till then by Skipper in terms of the revised agreement and the said Judgment.
(2.) January 29, 1991 marks the watershed in these proceedings. Before the said date, Skipper had collected about Rupees fourteen crores from various parties agreeing to sell the space in the proposed building. Even after January 29, 1991, Skipper issued several advertisements and collected substantial amounts-Rupees eleven crores, according to its own version-from various parties agreeing to sell the space in the said building. It appears that same space was sold to more than one person and monies collected. Not only did Skipper brazenly violate the orders of this Court dated January 29, 1991 by issuing advertisement, it also filed a suit in the Delhi High Court being Suit No. 770 of 1993 seeking an injunction restraining the D. D. A. from interfering with its alleged title and possession over the plot and for a declaration that the re-entry by D. D. A. was illegal and void! It also sought for a declaration that it has discharged all the amounts due to D. D. A. and that nothing was due from it. It obtained interim staying re-auction of the plot.
(3.) Against the interim order of the High Court staying the re-auction of the plot, D. D. A. approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21000 of 1993. Noticing the conduct of Skipper, this Court initiated suo mote contempt proceedings against Tejwant Singh and his wife, Surinder Kaur, Directors of Skipper. They were asked to explain (1) why did they institute Suit No. 770 of 1993 in respect of the very same subject-matter which was already adjudicated by this Court on January 23, 1993, i.e., by affirming the orders of the High Court dated December 21, 1990 and January 14, 1991 and (2) why did they enter into agreements for sale and create interest in the third parties in defiance of the orders of this Court dated January 29, 1991. After hearing the contemnors, this Court found them guilty of contempt of this Court in following words ; "We, therefore, invoke our power under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and order as follows : We sentence contemner-respondent 1, Tejwant Singh to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only). We further sentence contemner-respondent 2, Surinder Kaur to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the contemeners shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The payment of fine shall be made within one month from today. All the properties and the bank accounts standing in the names of the contemners and the Directors of M/s. Skipper Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and their wives, sons and unmarried daughters will stand attached.";