SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS.versusUMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

506            SUPREME COURT  REPORTS
                          [2019] 7 S.C.R. 506              [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A                         SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS.
                                        v.
                       UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.
                 (Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.1505-1506/2017
B                                       in
            (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10375-10376 of 2017)
                                 MAY 08, 2019
       [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
C
             Cooperative Society – Modern Cooperative Group Housing
      Society had approved strength of 211 members – 27 members were
      expelled including the present contempt petitioners – 15 new members
      including the alleged contemnors were inducted against the
      vacancies – Expulsion of those 27 members was challenged and
D     finally Supreme Court accepted their claim and directed their
      adjustment against the unallotted flats – Newly inducted members
      including the alleged contemnors approached Supreme Court –
      Directed to move the Administrator/Registrar,Cooperative Societies
      – Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide order dtd. 24.02.12 set aside
      the allotment of flats to them and directed re-admission of 14 persons
E     as members of the Society – Order challenged before the High Court
      – Rejected – Special leave petitions dismissed by Supreme Court,
      however liberty granted to the petitioners to file undertakings to
      vacate the apartments in their occupation – Undertakings filed –
      Present contempt petitions filed alleging that despite undertakings
F     the alleged contemnors failed to vacate the apartments in question
      – Order passed by Supreme Court on 10.01.19 – Affidavits filed by
      the alleged contemnors indicating their willingness to deposit Rs.30
      lakhs, for construction of a new building in the society, as stated in
      the said order – Held: Contemnors violated the orders passed by
      Supreme Court as despite having furnished the undertakings they
G     failed to vacate and hand over possession – But there are certain
      equities in their favour – They were inducted as members not
      clandestinely but against the resultant vacancies after expulsion of
      certain members, they paid all the instalments in time, on the basis
      of such instalments paid by the members including the alleged
H
                                       506
 SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. v. UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.                         507


contemnors, the construction was completed and they were put in           A
possession of the apartments soon thereafter –In view of the reports
made by the Architect a new building can be constructed with 18
apartments– Alleged contemnors to vacate their respective
apartments – Apartments so vacated be allotted to those persons
who were directed to be re-admitted as members in order dtd. 24.02.12
                                                                          B
– Each of the alleged contemnors, if he or she desires to have a
new apartment in the newly erected building, shall deposit Rs.10
lakhs with the Administrator,Cooperative Societies – Further
directions passed.
      Disposing of the Contempt Petitions, the Court
                                                                          C
       HELD: 1.1 The alleged contemnors violated the orders
passed by Supreme Court and despite having furnished
appropriate undertakings, failed to vacate and hand over
possession. But there are certain equities in their favour; in that
they were inducted as members not clandestinely but against the
resultant vacancies after expulsion of certain members, that they         D
had paid all the instalments in time, that on the basis of such
instalments paid by the members including the alleged contemnors
the construction was completed, and that they were put in
possession of the apartments soon thereafter. It is only as a
result of the expulsion orders of the contempt petitioners getting        E
set aside that the alleged contemnors have to vacate their
apartments and make way for the contempt petitioners. The
society had raised amounts and was benefited from two sets of
persons that is the alleged contemnors as well as the contempt
petitioners and the fact of the matter is that the society is presently
having funds to the tune of more than Rs.4 crores. Going by the           F
reports made by the Architect a new building can be constructed
with 18 apartments, which means that after satisfying the
requirements of all the alleged contemnors there will still be some
apartments left, from the sale of which money for construction
can be garnered. Furthermore, according to the Architect, within          G
the FAR available to it, the society can construct such new
building. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has also in principle
agreed that if FAR is available, the authority would not have any
objection to grant permission for construction of a new building.
[Paras 10, 11] [519-A-F]
                                                                          H
508           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A           1.2 In the circumstances, ends of justice would be met, if
      following directions are passed:- a) All the alleged contemnors
      shall vacate their respective apartments on or before 31.08.2019.
      The apartments so vacated shall thereafter be allotted to those
      persons who were directed to be re-admitted as members in terms
      of para 9 of the order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative
B
      Societies on 24.02.2012. The allotment shall be done in the
      presence of an Official from the Office of the Registrar,
      Cooperative Societies in a manner known to law. b) Each of the
      alleged contemnors, if he or she desires to have a new apartment
      in the newly erected building, shall deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs
C     with the Administrator of the Modern Cooperative Group Housing
      Society Limited on or before 31.10.2019. Along with such deposit,
      an appropriate affidavit shall be filed by such person (s)
      undertaking that in case any further amount (s) are to be deposited
      towards the cost of construction, he or she shall abide by such
      requisition scrupulously. c) Upon such deposit and furnishing of
D
      an affidavit every such person shall be re-admitted in the Society
      as a Member. d) Within one month from the date of this order,
      the Administrator shall prefer an appropriate application annexing
      therewith all the required documents including plans and drawings
      and seek permission to erect a new building with 18 apartments.
E     Such application shall be preferred with the concerned appropriate
      Authorities including Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (e)
      Municipal Corporation of Delhi which has agreed in principle that
      the permission for erecting a new building can be granted, shall
      consider said application and take appropriate decision in the
      matter within one month from the date when the application is
F
      preferred. (f) After the construction has begun, the Administrator
      shall be entitled to initiate the process for having new members
      admitted who are willing to deposit such sums as are required
      towards the cost of construction of an individual apartments which
      could then be allotted to them. (g) The Administrator shall also
G     be entitled to have a fresh draw of lots in the presence of an
      Official from the Office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies in
      respect of the building to be constructed so that each of those 18
      apartments could be allotted to the concerned persons including
      the alleged contemnors herein. (h) The alleged contemnors shall
      have to find new or transit accommodation till they are finally put
H     in possession of the apartments so allotted to them after
 SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. v. UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.                         509


completion of construction. The cost and charges in that behalf           A
shall be borne by the alleged contemnors and they shall not be
entitled to have any amount reimbursed either from the society
or from any of the members. (i) Whether the cost of construction
must come entirely from the allottees of apartments in the new
building to be constructed or whether the society would like to
                                                                          B
contribute in that behalf, is a matter which ought to be decided
by the society. The alleged contemnors had made their
contribution and as a matter of fact the society has funds to the
tune of more than Rs.4 crores available with it. In our view, the
directions as aforesaid would not only ensure that the contempt
petitioners are put in possession of the apartments to which they         C
have been found to be entitled to but will also take care of the
interests of the alleged contemnors who are required to vacate
the apartments only because of the setting aside of the expulsion
of the contempt petitioners. [Paras 12, 13] [519-G-H; 520-A-H;
521-A-D]
                                                                          D
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil)
Nos. 1505-1506 of 2017 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 10375-
10376 of 2017.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2017 of the Supreme
Court of India in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 10375-10376 of 2017.
                                                                          E
      With
      M.A. Nos. 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.
9439 of 2003.
      A. K. Sinha, Sr. Adv., S. D. Singh, Puneet Kr. Jain, Ms. Shweta
Sinha, Ms. Surabhi Shukla, Ms. Meenu Singh, Ms. Deepika Goyal,            F
R. K. Singh, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Krishnamohan K., Mohit Singh,
Ms. Dania Nayyar, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, R. C. Kaushik, Ms. Sunita
Sharma, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, B. V. Balaram Das, Praveen Swarup,
Madan Mohan, Ajay Kumar Giri, Suvesh Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, B. P.
Gupta, Shekhar Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                          G
      UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
      1. This Contempt Petition inter alia seeks enforcement of the
order dated 31.03.2017 passed by this Court in SLP(C)…..CC No.6319
of 2017 and prays for direction that the contempt petitioners be put in
                                                                          H
510             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     possession of 12 apartments indicated in the Contempt Petition. The
      order dated 31.03.2017 passed by this Court was to the following effect:
             “Taken on board.
             Application for exemption from filing certified as well as plain
             copy of the impugned order and permission to file SLP(s) without
B            certified copy as well as plain copy of impugned order are allowed.
               We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order(s)
             of the High Court. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
              Learned Counsel for the petitioners requests that the petitioners
C            be given some reasonable time to vacate the disputed premises in
             question.
               Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the history of
             the case, we deem it appropriate to grant three months’ time to
             the petitioners to vacate the premises in question subject to the
D            condition that the petitioners shall file an undertaking before this
             Court that they would so vacate. Such an undertaking be filed by
             the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today.”
             2. The facts leading to the filing of this Contempt Petition, in brief,
      are as under:
E            a) The Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited having
             an approved strength of 211 members passed a Resolution dated
             27.12.1987 in a General Body Meeting expelling 27 members
             including the present contempt petitioners. It appears that there
             were certain resignations after such expulsion and 15 new
             members including the alleged contemnors herein were inducted
F
             against the vacancies.
             b) The expulsion of those 27 members was subject matter of
             challenge and finally by judgment and order dated 18.10.2010
             passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.9439 of 2003, the claim of
             those who were expelled, was accepted and following direction
G            was passed:
                “31. Be that as it may, we have been informed by learned
                counsel for the parties that the Society has been taken over by
                the Administrator and a large number of flats remained un-
                allotted. The appellants have filed the information sought by
H
SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. v. UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.                            511
             [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      them under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 23.04.2008           A
      which makes it clear that 15 flats bearing Nos.14, 23, 217, 324,
      325, 327, 418, 421, 426, 513, 516, 619, 623 and 726 category –
      ‘B’ and 737 category – ‘A’ remained unallotted. In order to
      meet the ends of justice it is required that appellants be adjusted
      against the said un-allotted flats. However, the Society shall
                                                                            B
      put a demand, if any, and the appellants are directed to make
      the payment with interest in accordance with law.”
   c) The newly inducted members including the alleged contemnors
   then approached this Court by way of IA No.6-7 of 2011 which
   were disposed of by this Court on 03.03.2011, recording as under:
                                                                            C
      “The applicants are permitted to move the Administrator/
      Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi to vindicate their
      grievance and it is for them to substantiate and establish their
      rights. It is made clear that the applications shall be disposed
      of after hearing the parties as well as Society.”
                                                                            D
   d) The second round of litigation then began with the newly inducted
   members approaching Registrar Cooperative Societies submitting
   inter alia that relevant facts were concealed from this Court and
   it was not disclosed to this Court that pursuant to the draw of lots
   held on 20.10.2002, the newly enrolled members were put in
   physical occupation of said apartments. The matter was                   E
   considered by the Registrar Cooperative Societies and following
   order was passed on 24.02.2012:
      “08. Meetings with Administrator were held on a number of
      occasions to discuss the issue of allotment in the light of the
      Apex Court orders dated 18.10.2010 and dated 04.03.2011 and           F
      as a consequence of those meetings, the Administrator in
      continuation of his letter dated 31.10.2011 sent another letter
      dated 11.01.2012 informing that in view of the direction of this
      office which were sent on 01.04.2011 for complying the orders
      of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 18.10.2010, the demand letters         G
      were sent to the 14 members who were ordered to be admitted
      by the RCS vide his order dated 26.08.1997. Thirteen persons
      have deposited the amount demanded from them, however,
      one person, namely Shri Naurang Ram (Membership No.160)
      has not deposited the demanded amount. The Administrator
                                                                            H
512   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     was also called in this office, who had apprised the undersigned
      about the possession of society flats and the matter of
      occupancy of flat and other related issues were discussed
      thereafter in the light of subsequent order of Hon’ble Supreme
      Court on 04.03.2011. In consequence thereof, the Administrator
      met the persons occupying the 15 flats which were allotted to
B
      them in an unauthorized draw, on 01.10.2011 and 10.10.2011.
      On 20.10.2011 those members have also submitted documents
      in their possession to the Administrator in support of their claims
      of being the bonafide members of the society. All these
      documents have been forwarded by the Administrator to this
C     office apart from forwarding the details of cheques deposited,
      by the 13 members. These documents were examined and
      thereafter, as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
      15 unauthorized occupants of the flats in the society were called
      for personal hearing by the undersigned on 14.02.2012. The
      Administrator of the society Shri D.K. Mishra, IAS was also
D
      called to represent the society. All 15 persons or their
      representatives as also the Administrator were present during
      the hearing on 14.02.2012. The applicants re-iterated that they
      were allotted flats and living in the society since 2002. There
      are 06 persons who are still occupying flats and 09 have sold
E     those after getting possession on 20.10.2002.
      09. On the basis of the records available in this office, orders
      passed by the various courts as well as the Apex Court, report
      of the Administrator and submissions made by the appellants
      and the unauthorized occupants of the flats in I.A.No.6-7 of
F     2011, I am of the considered opinion that the self draw held on
      20.10.2002 was illegal and this was never organized or
      regularized by this office. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of
      India vide its order dated 18.10.2010 upheld the order dated
      26.08.1997 of the RCS. The operative part of the order dated,
      26.08.1987 of the then RCS in this regard is given below:-
G
      “in the circumstances the proposed expulsions are rejected
      against 14 persons. The society is directed to readmit the 14
      persons whose names are given below:
      1. Sh. Mithlesh Jain              2. Sh. Sant Lal Gupta
H     2. Sh. Naurang Ram                4. Sh. Virender Kumar Jain
SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. v. UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.                          513
             [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      5. Sh. Raghbir Singh             6. Sh. Om Prakash Gupta            A
      7. Sh. Rakesh Grover             8. Sh. Vijay Grover
      9. Sh. Narender Kumar            10. Sh. Ram Saran
      11. Sh. Vinod Kumar              12. Sh. Shyam Lal
      13. Sh. Kashmiri Lal             14. Sh. Shiv Prasad                B
      10. In view of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme
      Court, I direct the Society to readmit the above 14 persons as
      members of the Society. They should be issued share certificate
      by the Administrator of the society immediately. With respect
      to the flats being occupied by the applicants, who had filed        C
      I.A. Nos.6-7 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No.5439 of 2003, these
      persons were admitted as members by the Society in utter
      violation of the provisions of law since there was no clear
      vacancies at that moment. Accordingly, their admission as
      members and consequently allotment of flats to them, cannot         D
      be recognized and same is therefore set aside.”
   e) The aforesaid order directing those 14 persons to be re-
   admitted, was confirmed by the Financial Commissioner in Revision
   Petition Nos.119 of 2012 and 151 of 2012. The matter reached
   the High Court by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No.4202 of 2014 at
                                                                          E
   the instance of the newly inducted members. The challenge was
   rejected and the following order was passed by the High Court on
   31.01.2017.
      “16. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petitions with the
      direction to the RCS to draw out a seniority list of members
                                                                          F
      after consultation with the Administrator. The members lower
      in the seniority will have to surrender and vacate the flats in
      their occupation in favour of the Rakesh Grover Group (14
      members). We are given to understand that the members
      lowest in the seniority list are in occupation of flats mentioned
      and recorded by the Supreme Court in paragraph 31 of their          G
      order dated 18th October, 2010. This is apparently correct and
      this is the reason why they have filed W.P. (C)No.8553 of
      2014. They would have to vacate and handover the possession
      of the flats to Rakesh Grover Group (14 Members).
                                                                          H
514            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A              17. The RCS will complete the aforesaid exercise within a
               period of two months from the date a copy of this order is
               received. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are
               disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of. No
               costs.”
B           (f) The order passed by the High Court was put in challenge
            before this Court and the special leave petitions were dismissed
            by this Court on 31.03.2017. In terms of the liberty granted, the
            special leave petitioners filed appropriate undertakings to vacate
            the apartments in their occupation. The undertakings were filed
            on 13.04.2017 and the relevant averments in that behalf are to be
C           found in para no.15 of the present contempt petition as under:-
               “15. That as many as 12 persons have filed undertakings on
               13.04.2017 vide Diary No.31470 before this Hon’ble Court.
               The names of the persons/contemnors, filed the undertaking
               with flat number are given herein below:-
D
               (i)     Dinesh Kumar – Flat No.327
               (ii)    Harbinder Kaur Sarna – Flat No.623
               (iii)   Ritu Sethi – Flat No.325
               (iv)    S. Khurana (Sneh Lata Khurana) – Flat No.513
E
               (v)     Ritu Singh – Flat No.619
               (vi)    Anita Goel – Flat No.516
               (vii)   Trishala Jain alias S.B. Sharma – Flat No.426

F              (viii) Umesh Kr. Jain – Flat No.726
               (ix)    Arun Kumar Jain – Flat No.421
               (x)     Devender Nath Sharma – Flat No.217
               (xi)    Vineet Mittal – Flat No.14
G              (xii)   Sanjay Kumar – Flat No.418"
            3. Alleging that despite such undertakings, the alleged contemnors
      had failed in vacating the apartments in question and in handing over
      possession, the present contempt petition was filed. The notice was
      issued on 04.08.2017 and by further order dated 25.01.2018 status quo
H     was directed to be maintained.
 SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. v. UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.                               515
              [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

        4. It was submitted on behalf of the alleged contemnors that they       A
had been inducted as new members, had paid all the instalments which
the society had demanded, and had been in occupation of the apartments
for last several years. It was further submitted that the entire construction
was undertaken on the strength of deposits made by all the members
including the alleged contemnors and it would result in great prejudice, if
                                                                                B
they were now asked to vacate the apartments after such a length of
time. It was also submitted that the land in occupation of the society
was sufficient enough where one more building could be constructed
and if such possibilities were explored, the interest of the alleged
contemnors could also be taken care of. Finding substance in the
submission, following order was passed by this Court on 25.10.2018:-            C
      “We have heard Mr. A.K. Panda, learned senior counsel appearing
      for the Administrator/Society and all other learned counsel. We
      direct the Administrator to file an affidavit indicating:
          (1) The extent of land available where a Tower could be
          constructed;                                                          D

          (2) The extent of FAR available to the Society as on date;
          (3) How many apartments could be constructed in the open
          piece of land still available with the society?; and
          (4) The technical details including the timeline and the cost of      E
          construction which would be required to complete the project.
      All these details shall be supported by technical appraisal by a
      qualified Architect. The affidavit be filed within four weeks from
      today.”
                                                                                F
      5. Thereafter the matter appeared on 29.11.2018, when the
following order was passed:-
          “Pursuant to our order dated 25.10.2018, an affidavit has been
      filed by the Administrator of the Modern Cooperative Group
      Housing Society Ltd. The documents annexed to the affidavit
      indicate that quotations were called for from the Architects and          G
      quotation submitted by the Design Enhance, 310, S.G. Shopping
      Mall, D.C. Chowk, Sector – 9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 was accepted
      and work order was also issued on 20.11.2018.

                                                                                H
516            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A              Learned Counsel appearing for the administrator submitted that
            the architect’s report is expected shortly and that the matter be
            suitably adjourned to enable the administrator to place on record
            complete documentation including the cost analysis as well as the
            number of apartments that could be constructed in the new building.
B               We accept the submission and adjourn the matter for six weeks,
            to enable filing of such appropriate affidavit.”
            6. The subsequent order dated 10.01.2019 passed by this Court
      was as under:
                “In pursuance of order dated 29.11.2018 passed by this Court,
C           an affidavit has been filed by the Administrator of the Modern
            Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited on 07.01.2019. The
            affidavit has enclosed an extract of the report given by the Architect
            who has opined that within the FAR available for the Society,
            new tower can be constructed in the existing plot with 18
D           apartments of the size of 83.46 sq.meters each. It is a matter of
            record that there are 14 claimants involved in the matter and as
            such four apartments could be constructed over and above the
            existing requirement.
                At this stage, we deem it appropriate to solicit the response of
E           the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (North), whether such tower
            can be constructed and whether it would be within the FAR
            permissible for the society. Let a copy of this petition be served
            upon the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (North) which shall file
            its response within three weeks from the receipt of the notice.

F              We also direct the Administrator to convene a meeting of the
            General Body of the Society so that the proposal submitted by the
            Architect could be discussed in the meeting and response of the
            General Body could be placed on record before the next date of
            hearing.
                Learned counsel for the alleged-contemnors shall also file
G
            individual affidavits of undertaking on behalf of every single
            alleged-contemnor indicating his/her willingness to deposit a sum
            of Rupees thirty lakhs into the account of the Society so that
            appropriate orders can be passed on the next date of hearing.
            The affidavit of undertaking must also indicate the time-line within
H           which such deposit can be made.”
 SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. v. UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.                             517
              [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

       7. Thereafter, affidavits were filed by all the alleged contemnors     A
indicating their willingness to deposit a sum of Rs.30 lakhs as stated in
the order dated 10.01.2019. A General Body meeting was convened on
24.02.2019 which was attended by 73 members including 14 persons
who have been litigating and are interested in getting back the possession
of the apartments, whereas the alleged contemnors, having lost the status
                                                                              B
as members, could not vote. 43 members voted against the proposal of
having a new building constructed, while 30 members voted in favour of
the proposal. Nine Postal ballots received after the meeting showed
that all nine members had cast their votes in support of the new
construction. Thus, the voting pattern was:- 43 votes against the proposal
and 39 votes in favour of the proposal.                                       C
      8. The matter thereafter came up on 28.02.2019 when following
order was passed:-
          “In accordance with the direction issued by this Court on
      10.01.2019, a General Body Meeting of the Society was held under
      the Chairmanship of the Administrator on 24.02.2019. Minutes            D
      of the Meeting are enclosed in the Affidavit tendered across the
      bar by the Administrator. The affidavit is taken on record.
         Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, learned counsel has also filed affidavit
      on behalf of some of the alleged contemnors pursuant to the
      directions issued in the order dated 10.01.2019. 11 of the alleged      E
      contemnors have thus filed affidavits, which are taken on record.
      Copies of these affidavits be given to the other side.
         Further, pursuant to the direction issued on the last occasion,
      an affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the North Delhi
      Municipal Corporation, para 3 whereof reads as under:                   F
          “3. That accordingly, on last date of hearing i.e. on 10.01.2019
          this Hon’ble Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of
          Delhi (North), to file its response as to whether such tower
          can be constructed and whether it would be within the FAR
          permissible for the society.                                        G
          In regard to the above order dated 10.01.2019, it is respectfully
          stated that there is no record pertaining to approved layout
          that there is no record pertaining to approved layout plan/
          completion plan of Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society
          Limited available in the department, so as to ascertain the         H
518            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A              balance FAR availing for further construction by the society.
               Further, it is submitted that new tower with 18 dwelling units
               can be constructed only if balance ground coverage and FAR
               is available as against permissible ground coverage and
               permissible FAR prescribed for group housing in MPD-2021
               under clause 4.4.3, B-Residential Plot – Group Housing
B
               mentioning as below:
               1. Maxi, Ground                 33.3% (in case addition of
                  Coverage:                    alteration of existing DUs for
                                               availing balance FAR ground
                                               coverage upto 40% may be
C                                              allowed.
               2. Maximum FAR:                 200
               3. Height:                      NR (Subject to clearance from
                                               AAI/Fire Department and other
D                                              statutory bodies.
               4. Parking:                     2.0 ECS/100 sqm built up area
                                               and 0.5 ECS/100 sqm for EWS
                                               Service Personal Housing.”
               Since the Minutes of the General Body Meeting dated
E              24.02.2019 has taken a particular stand, we direct the
               Administrator to place on record, for our perusal, complete
               record with respect to the said meeting including E-mails and
               letters received by the Administrator in respect of said meeting.
             9.We have heard Mr. S.D. Singh, learned Advocate for the
F     contempt petitioners, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, learned Advocate for alleged
      contemnors, Mr. Praveen Swarup, learned Advocate for the Municipal
      Corporation of Delhi and all other learned Advocates. Mr. S. D. Singh
      very fairly submitted that if the contempt petitioners were assured of
      possession of apartments, they would be having no objection to support
      the cause of the alleged contemnors in having a new building constructed
G
      by the society. Consequently, the voting pattern which effectively was
      43 votes against the proposal and 39 votes in favour of the proposal
      would then drastically change and would be 29 votes against the proposal
      and 53 votes in favour of the proposal.
            10. Some of the salient features in the matter are:-
H
 SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. v. UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.                             519
              [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      1. The alleged contemnors have violated the orders passed by            A
      this Court and despite having furnished appropriate undertakings,
      have failed to vacate and hand over possession. But there are
      certain equities in their favour; in that they were inducted as
      members not clandestinely but against the resultant vacancies after
      expulsion of certain members, that they had paid all the instalments
                                                                              B
      in time, that on the basis of such instalments paid by the members
      including the alleged contemnors the construction was completed,
      and that they were put in possession of the apartments soon
      thereafter.
      2. It is only as a result of the expulsion orders of the contempt
      petitioners getting set aside that the alleged contemnors have to       C
      vacate their apartments and make way for the contempt
      petitioners.
      3. The society had raised amounts and was benefited from two
      sets of persons that is the alleged contemnors as well as the
      contempt petitioners and the fact of the matter is that the society     D
      is presently having funds to the tune of more than Rs.4 crores.
       11. Going by the reports made by the Architect a new building
can be constructed with 18 apartments, which means that after satisfying
the requirements of all the alleged contemnors there will still be some
apartments left, from the sale of which money for construction can be         E
garnered.
        Furthermore, according to the Architect, within the FAR available
to it, the society can construct such new building. The Municipal
Corporation of Delhi has also in principle agreed that if FAR is available,
the authority would not have any objection to grant permission for            F
construction of a new building.
       12. In the circumstances, though we are considering the matter in
contempt jurisdiction, in our considered view ends of justice would be
met, if following directions are passed:-
                                                                              G
      a) All the alleged contemnors shall vacate their respective
      apartments on or before 31.08.2019. The apartments so vacated
      shall thereafter be allotted to those persons who were directed to
      be re-admitted as members in terms of para 9 of the order passed
      by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 24.02.2012. The
      allotment shall be done in the presence of an Official from the         H
520      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     Office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in a manner known
      to law.
      b) Each of the alleged contemnors, if he or she desires to have a
      new apartment in the newly erected building, shall deposit a sum
      of Rs.10 lakhs with the Administrator of the Modern Cooperative
B     Group Housing Society Limited on or before 31.10.2019. Along
      with such deposit, an appropriate affidavit shall be filed by such
      person (s) undertaking that in case any further amount (s) are to
      be deposited towards the cost of construction, he or she shall
      abide by such requisition scrupulously.
C     c) Upon such deposit and furnishing of an affidavit every such
      person shall be re-admitted in the Society as a Member.
      d) Within one month from the date of this order, the Administrator
      shall prefer an appropriate application annexing therewith all the
      required documents including plans and drawings and seek
D     permission to erect a new building with 18 apartments. Such
      application shall be preferred with the concerned appropriate
      Authorities including Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
      (e) Municipal Corporation of Delhi which has agreed in principle
      that the permission for erecting a new building can be granted,
E     shall consider said application and take appropriate decision in the
      matter within one month from the date when the application is
      preferred.
      (f) After the construction has begun, the Administrator shall be
      entitled to initiate the process for having new members admitted
F     who are willing to deposit such sums as are required towards the
      cost of construction of an individual apartments which could then
      be allotted to them.
      (g) The Administrator shall also be entitled to have a fresh draw
      of lots in the presence of an Official from the Office of Registrar,
      Cooperative Societies in respect of the building to be constructed
G
      so that each of those 18 apartments could be allotted to the
      concerned persons including the alleged contemnors herein.
      (h) The alleged contemnors shall have to find new or transit
      accommodation till they are finally put in possession of the
      apartments so allotted to them after completion of construction.
H
 SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. v. UMESH KUMAR JAIN & ORS.                                521
              [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      The cost and charges in that behalf shall be borne by the alleged          A
      contemnors and they shall not be entitled to have any amount
      reimbursed either from the society or from any of the members.
      (i) Whether the cost of construction must come entirely from the
      allottees of apartments in the new building to be constructed or
      whether the society would like to contribute in that behalf, is a          B
      matter which ought to be decided by the society. We may only
      observe that the alleged contemnors had made their contribution
      and as a matter of fact the society has funds to the tune of more
      than Rs.4 crores available with it.
       13. In our view, the directions as aforesaid would not only ensure        C
that the contempt petitioners are put in possession of the apartments to
which they have been found to be entitled to but will also take care of
the interests of the alleged contemnors who are required to vacate the
apartments only because of the setting aside of the expulsion of the
contempt petitioners. These directions, in our considered view is the
only solution in which the interests of all can be sufficiently taken care       D
of.
      14. We, therefore, order accordingly. These Contempt Petitions
stand disposed of. No costs.

                                                                                 E
Divya Pandey                                   Contempt Petitions disposed of.




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H