Yashwant Singh vs Ashutosh Verma on 16 December, 2021

Delhi High Court

Yashwant Singh vs Ashutosh Verma on 16 December, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 16th December,

+ CS(OS) 5/2012

YASHWANT SINGH .....

Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. K
Sachdeva and Ms. Mahima Ah
Advocates

Versus

ASHUTOSH VERMA .....

Through: Mr. Arun K. Srivastva and
Jaryal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

ORDER

I.A.11037/2021 (of plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-2A CPC r/w Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971)

1. This application has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') alleging that the respondent/defendant has violated the order of
this court dated 21 st December, 2012.

2. Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff has submitted that by the order
dated 21 st December, 2012, this court had disposed of certain applications filed by both the parties
with the following directions:

"(a) The plaintiff is directed not to sell, alienate, transfer or part with possession of the aforesaid
floors i.e. basement, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing
Date:16.12.2021 15:28:02 ground and second floors of the suit property without the permission of
the Court.

(b) The defendant is restrained from interfering or causing hindrances in usage of the portions being
basement, ground and second floors of the suit property.

(c) The plaintiff in the Supplementary Memorandum of Agreement dated 20th January, 2011 in
Clause 1 has admitted that the defendant has extended financial assistance of Rs.2,78,70,000/- to
the plaintiff for the payment of bank dues and receipt of which was also acknowledged by the
plaintiff and in clause 2. The plaintiff has also admitted that the defendant has subsequently
extended some more financial assistance to him and now the total comes to Rs.3.18 crores, the
receipt of the same was also acknowledged and agreed to repay the consolidated amount of Rs.3.18
crores as per clause 3 of the agreement, on or before 30th June, 2011. Admittedly, the said amount

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/126256199/ 1

 Yashwant Singh vs Ashutosh Verma on 16 December, 2021

was not paid by the plaintiff, though the plaintiff has specifically admitted to receive Rs.1.48 crores
from the defendant. The said Supplementary Memorandum of Agreement is signed by the plaintiff.
Without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff to contest his plea as mentioned in his pleadings, he is
directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3.18 crores with the Registrar General of this Court within a period
of 6 weeks from today.

(d) The plaintiff is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.34,10,000/- admittedly received by him in
cash through his peon, with the Registrar General of this Court within the same period. The
Registrar General shall keep the aforesaid amounts in FDRs initially for a period of one year."

3. The learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submits that despite the directions of this court
restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering or causing hindrances in the usage of the
basement, ground and second Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing
Date:16.12.2021 15:28:02 floors of the property being A-24, Kailash Colony, New Delhi ('suit
property' for short), the respondent/defendant had actually prevented the applicant/plaintiff from
accessing these areas. Specifically, it is alleged in the application that when the applicant/plaintiff
had come from Patna to Delhi on 27th August, 2021 at about 9:45 PM, the applicant/plaintiff was
beaten badly by the respondent/defendant and his goons when he wanted to enter his own
premises. On 24th August, 2021 at about 9:00 AM, the respondent/defendant had also disconnected
the electricity connection to the ground floor of the suit premises and tried to make four CCTV
cameras installed at the ground floor non-functional, and when the domestic help and Chokidar of
the applicant/plaintiff had objected to it, they were beaten badly and thrown out of the compound.
It is submitted, that thereafter, the respondent / defendant had removed the marble name plate of
the applicant/plaintiff and had fixed a name plate in which he had only mentioned his name. The
car of the applicant/plaintiff standing in the compound was also removed out of the suit premises.
The CCTV cameras on the second and third floors were also removed on 18th August, 2021 at about
8:00 PM by the respondent/defendant and thereafter the locks on the second unit of the second
floor and the entrance of the third floor were broken. On that night, the Chokidar and his wife and
the domestic help of the applicant/plaintiff were manhandled as well. These people were also
prevented from going up to the second floor. On all these occasions, the Police were alerted, yet the
respondent/defendant continued with his acts of interference. Thus, the application was
necessitated.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:16.12.2021 15:28:02

4. In the reply filed by the respondent/defendant, it is stated that he is an Advocate and therefore a
law abiding citizen and has great respect for the process of law and the court. He has stated that he
had not disobeyed any direction of the court in any manner whatsoever, whereas it was the
applicant/plaintiff who has been guilty of wilful disobedience of the order passed on 21st December,
2012, as till date he has not deposited the amount of Rs.3.18 crores and Rs.31,10,000/- in terms of
the said order. Such contumacious behaviour had been noted by this court in its previous orders,
despite which the applicant/plaintiff has not made the deposits. As such the applicant/plaintiff was
previously not found entitled to any discretionary relief and none should be granted even now.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/126256199/ 2

 Yashwant Singh vs Ashutosh Verma on 16 December, 2021

5. Mr. Arun K. Srivastva, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that the
applicant/plaintiff owed money to several creditors who used to visit the suit premises at odd hours
and as such there was a security issue. That was why the respondent/defendant, residing on the first
floor kept the main gate locked during the night. The access of the applicant/plaintiff was never
prevented, as there was a side gate which has always remained open. It was further submitted that
the car of the respondent/defendant was parked inside the premises for security reasons
temporarily, as the respondent/defendant frequently went out of station and it was the
applicant/plaintiff who had himself parked his car outside.

6. It is further the case of the respondent/defendant that he has been a victim of fraud played by the
applicant/plaintiff and was still being subjected to harassment by the applicant/plaintiff who has
been making incorrect and false statements throughout the proceedings. The respondent/defendant
has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:16.12.2021 15:28:02
accused the domestic help of the applicant/plaintiff alleging that she herself had removed the CCTV
cameras which had been installed in the suit premises by the respondent/defendant himself. He has
further submitted that he has the greatest respect for the court and has always obeyed the directions
of the court and undertakes to do so for ever.

7. It may be mentioned at this juncture that in the light of the allegations and counter allegations
levelled by the two sides, vide order dated 6th October, 2021, this court appointed Mr. Nikhil
Pahwa, Advocate as a Local Commissioner to visit the suit property i.e. A-24, Kailash Colony, New
Delhi and to inspect and report on the status of the suit premises and to ensure that access was
facilitated to the applicant/plaintiff through the main gate. The entire proceeding was to be
videographed. The Status Report has been filed by the Local Commissioner along with photographs.

8. According to the Report of the Local Commissioner, on 7th October, 2021, when he had inspected
the premises, he had found that an engraved stone sign with the applicant/plaintiff's name had been
broken and the broken pieces of the stone were lying right below the sign. Next to this stone
engraved name plate, a metal name plate was put, sprayed over with black spray paint and the
words 'A-24' sprayed on it in white paint. He found that both the gates were locked with the keys
being with Mr. Yusuf who worked for the respondent/defendant, who also revealed that he had only
one key each for both the gates. He also stated that the side gate remained open during the day
whereas the main gate was kept locked always for safety reasons. The Local Commissioner also
noted that on the ground floor there were two separate doors leading to two different residential
units. The unit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing
Date:16.12.2021 15:28:02 on the left had two locks on it, the original lock on the door and an
additional padlock which had been installed recently, as informed by the applicant/plaintiff and
which could not be opened with his keys in the presence of the Local Commissioner. A CCTV camera
on the ground floor was found and the other unit on the ground floor had only one padlock whereas
the original lock on the door had been removed. The representative of the respondent/defendant,
Mr. Nathi stated that he did not have any of the keys for these units. In the basement, two locks were
found but with no handle and was empty except for some metal rods and eight empty bathtubs. Mr.
Nathi also informed that he could not open the locked portion of the basement area. Three CCTV
cameras were found in the driveway. The car of the respondent/defendant bearing No.DL7CG9837

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/126256199/ 3

 Yashwant Singh vs Ashutosh Verma on 16 December, 2021

was found parked in the driveway which Mr. Nathi Singh informed was lying there for the last ten
days. In the back porch, the Local Commissioner found only four cemented squares where according
to the applicant/plaintiff there were dog houses and also a servant quarter. The servant quarters had
only two walls standing and the remaining structure was found demolished with debris everywhere.
The toilets adjacent to these servant quarters were also in a dilapidated condition filled with debris.
There was a shoe rack in the driveway full of shoes. On the second floor, both the units were locked.
No CCTV camera was found and only wire holders remained. At the terrace, the keys being with the
respondent/defendant, his representative Mr. Nathi did not open the door. The employees of the
respondent/defendant had stated to the Local Commissioner that the Korean Embassy was in
possession of the keys for the ground and second floors. The Local Commissioner also recorded that
when he spoke to the respondent/defendant on Mr. Nathi's Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:16.12.2021 15:28:02 phone, he refused to allow the
applicant/plaintiff to park his car inside the gate but stated that he would allow the
applicant/plaintiff to enter through the main gate. When asked whether he would allow a set of
duplicate keys to the main gate to be supplied to the applicant/plaintiff, the respondent/defendant
stated that since the gate was locked from inside, even if the keys were provided to the
applicant/plaintiff, he would not be able to access the property without prior permission of the
respondent/defendant and that whenever the applicant/plaintiff came, he could either call Mr.
Yusuf or Mr. Nathi or Mr. Verma and he would be allowed access into the premises through the
main gate at any time, day or night.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff placed reliance on the Local Commissioner's
Report to contend that there was clear disobedience of the court orders and the strictest action be
taken against him.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent / defendant / contemnor however submitted that the
respondent/defendant had no intention to prevent access but that the main gate would be opened
only on the request of the applicant/plaintiff and with the consent of the respondent/defendant. The
alternate arrangement could be that the applicant/plaintiff engaged a security personnel at the suit
property, in which case, even the main gates would not be locked.

11. The present application is one under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC. The power of the court
under the said provision is punitive in nature, as punishment has been prescribed for disobedience
or breach of an injunction order passed by the civil court. No doubt the court would be circumspect
in using its power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC but Signature Not Verified Digitally
Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:16.12.2021 15:28:02 the caution exercised cannot
tantamount to a reluctance to exercise the powers vested in the court in appropriate cases. In the
present case, the respondent/defendant admittedly is a lawyer. If not he, who else would understand
the need for obedience of court's directions. While the learned counsel for the respondent /
defendant continued to emphasize on direction

(c) of the order dated 21st December, 2012 and its non-compliance, he cannot have overlooked the
direction (b) of the order which was issued unequivocally, restraining the respondent/defendant
from interfering or causing hindrances in usage of the portions being basement, ground and second

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/126256199/ 4

 Yashwant Singh vs Ashutosh Verma on 16 December, 2021

floors of the suit property by the applicant/plaintiff. This order was issued after considering the
conduct of the applicant/plaintiff with respect to the alleged letting out of the premises to the
Korean Embassy. Though the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff explained how the said
direction stood complied with, even assuming he had not, that fact would not justify the actions of
the respondent/defendant as directions in clause (b) were not subject to compliance of directions in
clause (c).

12. The reply to the application as well as the response to the Local Commissioner's report appear to
be a re-enforcement of the stand of the respondent/defendant that he would be having the
discretion to allow the entry of the applicant/plaintiff into the suit premises and that too from which
gate, the main gate or the side gate. There is not an explanation offered for the state of the servant
quarters and the kennels in the rear side of the suit property. There is no explanation for the
additional/new locks being placed on the doors in the basement, ground and second floors which
the applicant/plaintiff was unable to open with his keys in the presence of the Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:16.12.2021 15:28:02 Local Commissioner. There
is no explanation as to why the name plate was destroyed and replaced. The concern for security is
not sufficient to justify all of this. As regards the parking of the car of the applicant/plaintiff, when
the respondent/defendant has claimed the applicant/plaintiff had himself parked it outside, it is
clear that he would have done so from some place, and when the respondent/defendant has further
claimed there are two parking slots, he could not have prevented the applicant/plaintiff from
parking his car inside the main gate. Respondent/defendant claims that he has brought in his car as
he was frequently travelling. In other words, he is justifying his action in preventing the
applicant/plaintiff from parking it in the suit premises.

13. The employee of the respondent / defendant claimed to the Local Commissioner that the keys to
the locked portions were in the possession of the Korean Embassy. But this is farcical. It is the case
of the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant that the applicant/plaintiff had misled the
court regarding letting out of the premises to Korean Embassy in order to prejudice him, and the
court had condemned it in strong words in the order dated 21st December, 2012. If that is so, then at
least since 2012, the Korean Embassy is not in occupation of the suit premises. It is nobody's case
that since 2012, the premises have not been opened or used by the applicant/plaintiff. In fact the
respondent/defendant has accused the servants of the applicant/plaintiff of misdemeanour
indicating their presence and access to the basement, ground floor and second floor. It can be
inferred that the locks have been placed by the respondent/defendant and which is in clear violation
of the court's directions, as it hinders the access of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:16.12.2021 15:28:02 applicant/plaintiff to the basement, ground
and second floors of the suit premises.

14. On the basis of the material placed before the court, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the
respondent/defendant is in contumacious and wilful disobedience of the order of this court dated
21st December, 2012.

15. Though in the reply filed to the application, the respondent/defendant has submitted that he is
apologetic for what has happened, it is more than apparent that there is no apology at all, as there

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/126256199/ 5

 Yashwant Singh vs Ashutosh Verma on 16 December, 2021

are assertions made contrary to being contrite, as noticed above. However, in the light of the fact
that the respondent/defendant is an advocate, punitive action against him is suspended for at least
one year with the conduct of the respondent/defendant remaining under scrutiny.

16. The following directions are additionally issued:

(I) The respondent/defendant shall not interfere with the peaceful egress and ingress
from the main gate of the applicant/plaintiff, his servants and family members as
also to their free access to the basement, ground floor and second floor of the suit
property i.e. A-24, Kailash Colony, New Delhi;

(II) The electricity supply to these portions shall be restored by the

respondent/defendant at his own costs;

(III) The CCTV cameras found removed as noted in the Local Commissioner's Report
shall be restored by the respondent/defendant at his own costs;

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:16.12.2021 15:28:02 (IV)
The respondent/defendant shall replace the name plate including the name of the
applicant/plaintiff at his own costs;

(V) The respondent/defendant is restrained from interfering with the applicant/plaintiff parking his
car inside the main gate.

Any violation of the aforesaid orders shall entail an immediate punitive action being taken against
the respondent/defendant.

17. The application stands disposed of.

18. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

(ASHA MENON) JUDGE DECEMBER) 16, 2021 'bs' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:16.12.2021 15:28:02

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/126256199/ 6