Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society Limited is respondent No. 1 to the petition. It is hereinafter referred to as "the society" for the sake of brevity. The petitioner was admitted to the membership of the society in July 1973. The society then had been constructing residential flats. In 1977, the construction had been in progress. During that very year, the society passed a resolution expelling the petitioner from its membership. The petitioner challenged that resolution before the Board of Nominees constituted under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. On 26th May 1978, the Board of Nominees issued an ad-interim injunction-restraining respondents Nos. 2 to 10 the other members of the society from taking possession of the flats under construction and restraining the society from handing over possession of these flats to respondents Nos. 2 to 10. The Board of Nominees also stayed the implementation of the resolution which was challenged before it.

4. The petitioner alleges that respondents Nos. 2 to 10 thereafter took possession of the flats in violation of the ad-interim injunction issued by the board of Nominees, completed the construction and occupied them. Therefore, the petitioner filed in this court miscellaneous civil application No. 105 of 1979 for taking, action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. How ever, it appears that that petition was withdrawn because the ad-interim in junction which the Board of Nominees had issued had yet to be confirmed after hearing both the parties. On 5th May, 1979, both the parties were heard. Upon hearing both the parties, the Board of Nominees vacated the ad-interim injunction.

5. The petitioner challenged that order in Revision Application No. 24 of 1979, which he filed before the Gujarat Co-operative Tribunal. In that revision application, no ad-interim injunction was given. However, after hearing both the sides the Tribunal allowed the revision application and granted an ad-interim in Junction. The order of the tribunal shows that the ad-interim injunction which the Board of Nominees had granted and which they had vacated was made absolute by the Tribunal. The petitioner alleges in this petition that during the period during which the ad-interim injunction issued by the Board of Nominees was in operation, the respondents committed a willful breach thereof with in the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

6. The first question, which has arisen before us, is whether we have jurisdiction to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in view of the provisions of S. 20 of that Act. The ad-inte rim injunction issued by the Board of Nominees had been in force from 26-5-1978 to 5-5-1979 on that day, it was vacated. The present petition was filed on 20-11-1979. Notice was issued by this Court to respondents on 23-11-1979.

Therefore, unless the respondents had committed willful breach of the ad-inte rim injunction issued by the Board of Nominees, say, between 20-lr-1978 and 5-5-1979 when the ad-interim injunction was vacated, no action can be taken against them. The petitioner has not stated in this petition when the breach of the ad-interim injunction was committed. It is quite probable that the breach of the ad-interim injunction might have been committed say between 26-5-1978 and 20-11-1978. If it was so, then, interim injunction issued by the Board Section 20 would bar our jurisdiction to of Nominees, completed the construction take action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. If willful breach of the ad-interim injunction was committed by the respondents say between 20-11-1978 and 5-5-1979 S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would not bar our jurisdiction. In view of this state of affairs it was absolutely necessary for the petitioner to state in his petition when the respondents committed willful breach of the ad-interim injunction issued by the Board of Nominees. He has not done so. It is the duty of the person who institutes an action to satisfy the court that it is within time. When we say so, we are assuming that the information supplied by the petitioner by filing the present petition amounted to the institution of an action against the respondents. When the petitioner was faced with this situation an attempt was made to argue that the petitioner had instituted earlier miscellaneous Civil Application No. 105 of 1979 in this Court and that the present proceedings were a continuation thereof. There cannot be a more untenable argument than one, which Mr. Ravel has raised on behalf of the petitioner. The earlier petition stood terminated finally when it was withdrawn by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Board of Nominee heard both the parties in the matter of ad-interim injunction issued by it earlier and made an order vacating it. Intervention of these two events totally disconnect the earlier proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act from the present proceedings.