DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. ETC.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. ETC.

Filing a suit in the High Court on the same subject matter after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court and entering agreements to create third-party interests constitutes criminal contempt of court. The actions are wilful and undermine the dignity of the Supreme Court and the majesty of law. Intention or legal advice is irrelevant in the determination of criminal contempt.

Parties
Petitioner: Delhi Development Authority; Respondent: Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.; Respondent: Second Respondent (wife of first respondent)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 February 1995
Procedural Posture
Suo Motu Contempt Petition and SLP (civil) / Final Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Contemnors found guilty of criminal contempt; sentenced to imprisonment and fines. Sentence deferred subject to specific conditions.
Legal Topics
Criminal Contempt, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Auction Dispute
Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Criminal Contempt Abuse of Process Res Judicata Auction Dispute

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Development Authority

Petitioner

Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Second Respondent (wife of first respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Suo Motu Contempt Petition and SLP (civil) / Final Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether filing a suit in High Court after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition amounts to criminal contempt
  2. 2 Whether actions of respondent in creating third party interests constitute contempt
  3. 3 Effectiveness and genuineness of apology tendered by contemnors

Ratio Decidendi

Filing a suit in the High Court on the same subject matter after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court and entering agreements to create third-party interests constitutes criminal contempt of court. The actions are wilful and undermine the dignity of the Supreme Court and the majesty of law. Intention or legal advice is irrelevant in the determination of criminal contempt.

Court Disposition

Contemnors found guilty of criminal contempt; sentenced to imprisonment and fines. Sentence deferred subject to specific conditions.

Orders

  • Contemner-respondent No. 1 sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and Rs. 50,000 fine
  • Contemner-respondent No. 2 sentenced to one month simple imprisonment and Rs. 50,000 fine