THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI versus NIKHILN. GUPTA & ANR.

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI versus NIKHILN. GUPTA & ANR.

Respondents, having filed affidavit of undertaking to vacate the premises and availed the benefit of extension of time, are guilty of civil contempt for willful breach of that undertaking. The acts of the respondents are in clear violation of the Supreme Court's order. Third-party occupants/obstructionists have no better rights than the contemnors after the original lease expired; respondents remain bound to hand over vacant possession as per the lease and undertaking.

Parties
Petitioner: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI; Respondent: NIKHIL N. GUPTA; Respondent: Khushiram Chimanlal Pvt. Ltd (Respondent No.2-company)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (civil) / Order on Merits, Pending Further Report
Outcome
Respondents found prima facie guilty of contempt; Contempt Petition adjourned for compliance and further report.
Legal Topics
Civil Contempt, Breach of Undertaking, Eviction, Execution of Decree, Third Party/obstructionist Rights
Contempt of Court Property Law Tenancy Law Civil Contempt Breach of Undertaking Eviction Execution of Decree Third Party/obstructionist Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI

Petitioner

NIKHIL N. GUPTA

Respondent

Khushiram Chimanlal Pvt. Ltd (Respondent No.2-company)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (civil) / Order on Merits, Pending Further Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are guilty of civil contempt for willful breach of an undertaking given to the Supreme Court to vacate leased premises.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents can be absolved from contempt liability on the ground that third parties/tenants are in possession and eviction is not feasible.
  3. 3 Whether the petition is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents, having filed affidavit of undertaking to vacate the premises and availed the benefit of extension of time, are guilty of civil contempt for willful breach of that undertaking. The acts of the respondents are in clear violation of the Supreme Court's order. Third-party occupants/obstructionists have no better rights than the contemnors after the original lease expired; respondents remain bound to hand over vacant possession as per the lease and undertaking.

Court Disposition

Respondents found prima facie guilty of contempt; Contempt Petition adjourned for compliance and further report.

Orders

  • Executing court to issue warrant of possession and bailiff to remove all obstructionists and hand over vacant possession to petitioner-Port Trust.
  • Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, to render all assistance to bailiff and ensure vacant possession is handed over to petitioner-Port Trust.