Delhi High Court
M/S Splendor Landbase Ltd vs Mr. Sachin Kaushik & Ors. on 24 August, 2023
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan
$~A-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 121/2022 & C.M.Nos.22623-22624/2022
M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Gaurav Puri with Mr.Sarthak
Gupta and Mr.Saksham Thareja,
Advocates.
versus
MR. SACHIN KAUSHIK & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
% Date of Decision: 24th August, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 07th September, 2021 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CCP(O) No.23 of 2021 in O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) No. 25 of 2021.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in holding that the order of injunction dated 25th January, 2021, whereby the Court directed maintenance of status quo with respect to the suit property, is only qua M/s Aparna Ashram (Society) and M/s Shree Damodar Corporation. He contends that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the four shell purchaser companies i.e. (a) M/S Radox Tradex Pvt. Ltd.; (b) M/S SS Premium Homes Pvt. Ltd.; (c) M/S Rosemerta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:28.08.2023 17:21:53 FAO(OS) (COMM)121/2022 Page 1 of 3 Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and (d) M/S Star Care Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. had transferred their directorship, shareholding and control to a third party - M/s Twenty Seven Info Care Pvt. Ltd. in violation of the injunction order dated 25th January, 2021.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that violation of an injunction order by a third party is also contemptuous in the eyes of law. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Gotan Lime Stone Khanji Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2016 SC 510 and of the Madras High Court in Vidya Charan Shukla vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association & Ors. AIR 1991 Mad. 323.
4. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the order dated 25th January, 2021 has only been passed against respondent nos. 1 and 2 [M/s Aparna Ashram (Society) and M/s Shree Damodar Corporation], whereby they were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit land. Consequently, the transfer of shareholding and directorship of the four buyer companies cannot be considered to be in violation of the order dated 25th January, 2021 as no injunction was passed against the said four companies.
5. Further, the sale of the suit land by respondent nos.1 and 2 in favour of the four buyer companies vide sale deed dated 18th December, 2020, is admittedly prior to the status quo order dated 25th January, 2021.
6. This Court is also of the opinion that the judgments of Vidya Charan Shukla vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association & Ors. (supra) and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Gotan Lime Stone Khanji Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) offer no assistance to the appellant as they are inapplicable to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:28.08.2023 17:21:53 FAO(OS) (COMM)121/2022 Page 2 of 3 facts of the present case. This Court is of the view that the condition precedent for invoking the principle of piercing the corporate veil is not fulfilled in the present case. This Court also finds that the respondents have neither aided or abetted the violation of the order of the Court nor obstructed the path of justice. The injunction order was qua third party interest in the suit property and the said order has not been interfered with or violated by the respondents.
7. Accordingly, the present appeal, being bereft of merit, is dismissed along with pending applications.
MANMOHAN, J MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 24, 2023 KA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:28.08.2023 17:21:53 FAO(OS) (COMM)121/2022 Page 3 of 3