Supreme Court of India
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ANR.versusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF PUNE AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 200
- Decided
- 7 February 1996
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
No construction can be undertaken contrary to an injunction that remains in force; the High Court’s closure of the contempt proceedings was not warranted, but the Supreme Court will not disturb the High Court’s order and the appeal is disposed.
Summary
The Bombay Environmental Action Group appealed to the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court’s order closing contempt proceedings against builders who were constructing a building on plot No. 57. The High Court had held that the construction did not violate its earlier interim injunction dated 23‑03‑1992, which was issued in the writ petitions 923/92 and 5710/91, and therefore dismissed the contempt petition. The appellants argued that the builders, though authorized by the landowner, were proceeding in contravention of the injunction and environmental regulations, and that the High Court should have proceeded with contempt action. The Supreme Court observed that while the High Court’s prima‑facie view was not sufficient to justify a finding of no contempt, the injunction remained in force and no construction could be undertaken contrary to it. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal without interfering with the High Court’s decision and without awarding costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the builders’ construction on plot No. 57 amounted to a violation of the High Court’s interim injunction and thus constituted contempt of court.
- Whether the High Court was justified in closing the contempt proceedings on the basis of a prima facie view that no breach occurred.
- Interpretation of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the context of alleged violation of an injunction.
Legislation cited
Subjects
contempt of courtinjunctionenvironmental degradationconstructionmunicipal corporationhigh court orderSupreme Court appeal
Judgment
A BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ANR. r-
v.
THE MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF PUNE AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 7, 1996
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Contempt of Court Act, 1971:
Contempt-Violation of Injunction orde!"-Developer proceeding with
construction of building-Contempt proceedings-High Cowt closing con-
c tempt proceedings-Builder being co-nominee party bound by the Injunction _,...
order which remains in force-Hence no construction can be made contrary
to .the directions contained therein-Certain prima facie opinion of High
Court-Held : Not warranted in the Contempt proceedings.
D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3450 of
1996 .
.Prom the Judgruent and Order dated 26.12.95 of the Bombay High
Court in C. Application no. 7125/95 in W.P. No. 923 of 1992.
E Gopal Subramaniam, M. Doctor, Ms. Shruti Pandey and Ms. Indu
Malhotra, for the Appellants.
E.P. Baroocha, Ms. Fargana and KJ. John for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F Leave granted.
We have hard the counsel on both sides.
The contempt proceedings sought to be taken out against the respon-
dents-builders/developers on the ground that the order passed by the High
G Court on 23.3.1992 in Writ Petition Nos. 923/92 and 5710/91 has been
violated on the premises that in spite of the injunction order granted in
terms of para (t) extracted in the impugned order, the developer is
proceeding with the construction in plot No. 57, the prayer was turned .)
down by the High Court. It is an admitted fact that two civil suits came to
H be filed by the owner, R.F. Mulla Trust, in the civil Court and those suits ·
2~2
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF PUNE 253
now stand decreed. As at present the decrees are not subject matter of any A
appeals. Under these circumstances, the High Court proceeded on the
footing that when there is a valid decree passed by civil Court to proceed
with the construction of the flats in plot No. 57, the action taken by the
builder is not in violation of the order of the High Court. While so holding
the Division Bench in the impugned order also pointed out thus :
B
"We are, however, not inclined to hold that there is any contempt
or that any restraint order is necessary."
In view of that finding the contempt proceedings were closed holding
that whatever construction is done would be subject to the final orders in C
the writ petitions.
Shri Gopal Subramaniain, learned senior counsel, contended that
though the owner of the land, namely, M/s. R.F. Mulla Trust, had given
the right to the developer to construct the building in accordance with law,
yet the construction is in violation of law. The appellants approached the D
High Court that the builders are causing environmental degradation and
the matter is pending. Interim injunction was issued restraining the builders
to proceed with the construction except in accordance with the certificate
issued by the Collector and the rules contained in Appendix 'S' to the
Development Control Rules for Pune. The owner had secured injunction E
in the civil suit by way of a declaration on a misrepresentation that the writ
- petitions pending in the High Court were disposed of and that there was
no stay granted by the High Court to proceed with the construction in plot
No. 57. It is contrary to the record, namely, writ petitions are pending and
injunction order is still subsisting. Though the appellant is not a party to
the proceedings in the suit, the developer, who got his right from the owner F
and proceeded pursuant thereto, is also bound by the orders of the High
Court where he is eo- nominee party respondent. The high Court ought to
have taken serious view of the matter as the procedure adopted in the civil
suit is nothing but to circumvent the orders of the High Court. In that
perspective, the High Court ought to have taken serious note of the G
violation of its orders and proceeded for contempt in accordance with law.
May be, as contended by Shri Gopal Subramaniam the view is
possible. But the High Court was not inclined to pursue further action
against the developer and held that it was not in violation of the High
Court's orders. In the view the High Court had taken, we do not think that H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.
A it is a case for us to interfere. Howeve~, it would be open to the appellants
to seek such remedy as is available under law to have the decrees of the
civil court assailed in an appropriate forum and seek such directions as
may be deemed necessary to be consistent with the orders of the High
Court so long as the writ petitions are pending. We do not make any further
observations in this regard.
B
Shri Baroocha, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respon-
dents, in fairness has stated that the High Court did not intend to vary the
-
order of interim injunction granted in terms of prayer (f)'. He contended
that the respondent is proceeding only in accordance with the rules con-
C tained in appendix 'S' to the Development ControlRules for Pune and the
certificate given by the Collector and that his proceeding with the matter .
is not in violation of the order granting injunction on 23.3.1992. We are not
concerned with that controversy in this case. If there is anything, ap-
propriate action would be in the High Court itself.
D It is made clear that so long as the order of injunction granted by
the High Court on 23.3.1992 is in force and is allowed to remain in force,
no construction can be made contrary to the directions contained therein.
Any construction should be only consistent with that order and no further.
We also make it clear that the observation made by the High Court
E that "we are 1 therefore 1 prima facie of the opinion that initiation of the
buildings on plot No. 57 does not appear to be in breach of the rules" does
not warrant such a finding in the contempt proceedings.
The appeal is disposed of with the above observations. No costs~
F G.N. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search