(A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.)
Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi _______________ Non-Applicant/Appellant;
v.
Zeeny Jhelumi ___________________________ Applicant/Respondent.
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 1005-1006 of 2020 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2086 and 2087 of 2020, decided on August 24, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. We have perused the report submitted by the Court Receiver dated 24.08.2021.
3. In terms of this order, we propose to vacate the order of attachment in respect of all the properties, referred to in the Court Receiver’s report at Serial No. (i) to (vi).
4. However, before issuing the directions, we would like to refer to the portions of the specific directives given by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in the Order dated 31.05.2018 vide paragraphs 2 to 4 which read thus:
“2……Thus, the entitled revised amount payable would be Rs. 5,57,500/- per month. In terms of the Settlement Agreement the appellant receives Rs. 35,000/- per month as rent of first floor, N-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi and Rs. 1,35,000/- per month as use and occupation charges of property bearing No. 12A, South Drive DLF Chattarpur Farms, New Delhi 110074. So long as these amounts are being received by her, there will be a corresponding deduction from the monthly maintenance amount to be paid to her by the respondent. The amount of Rs. 387,500/- shall be paid to the appellant’s bank account being account No. 00031000112719, HDFC Bank, K.G. Marg, New Delhi on or before the 15th day of each month. Whenever, lesser rental amount is received by the appellant, the respondent shall make good such shortfall to ensure that the she receives Rs. 5,57,500/- by the 15th day of the month. In the event of default in such payment, the appellant shall be entitled for directions to get such amount released directly from the respondent’s bank account.
3. Any infraction in payment of this amount either in quantum or by the date, shall automatically be visited with costs of Rs. 25,000/- which too shall be paid into the appellant’s bank account, within two weeks of such infraction.
4. The respondent shall make arrangement for residence of the appellant and her two children, on the same campus where he is residing, preferably in property no. 12 A, South Drive, DLF Chattarpur Farms, New Delhi by terminating the current month to month tenancy/lease and license arrangement of its current occupant. Let this arrangement be made within four weeks from today. An affidavit of compliance be filed before the next date….”
5. On this basis the Division Bench vide the order dated 24.12.2019 proceeded to observe in Paragraph 40 as follows:
“40. ….It is thus clear that the learned senior counsel for the respondent have an undertaking with respect to the payment of Rs. 5,57,500/- and also with respect to making arrangements for residence of the petitioner and the two minor children preferably in the property no. 12 A, South Drive, DLF Chattarpur farms, New Delhi….”
6. In other words, the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) is not only liable to pay maintenance amount as quantified but he is also responsible for providing suitable residence for the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) and their two minor children within the property No. 12A, South Drive, DLF Chattarpur Farms, New Delhi within 4 weeks from 24.12.2019. The non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) has certainly failed and neglected to comply with this direction.
7. As regards maintenance amount in terms of order passed by the Single Judge dated 31.05.2018 and as confirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 24.12.2019, the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,57,500/- plus 25,000/- per month, for delayed payment in terms of paragraph 3 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge read with paragraphs 2 and 4 of the same order.
8. As regards property at serial No.(i) being residential house of 1 acre bearing No. 12A, South Drive, DLF Chattarpur Farms, New Delhi receiving rental income of approximately Rs. 1,35,000/- per month, the Court Receiver has already recovered a sum of Rs. 10,93,500/-. No separate expenses have been incurred with regard to the stated property by the Court Receiver.
9. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 10,93,500/- be made over to the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) forthwith, while making it clear that the claim of the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) as articulated in the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Division Bench in Contempt CAS(C) No. 516/2018 will have to be adjusted against the sale proceeds received from the property at serial No.(iv). We shall deal with that aspect a little later.
10. Needless to observe that the vacation of attachment order in terms of this order will place the parties to the same position as it obtained before passing of the attachment order by this Court – to mean that if there is any attachment/injunction or restraint order in respect of this property passed in earlier point of time by the concerned Court in any proceeding between the parties, the same shall get revived with immediate effect on the same terms until suitably modified by the concerned Court.
11. As regards property at serial No.(ii) being two-room flat on the first floor bearing No. 94, Panchsheel Park, the Court Receiver’s report mentions that no income has been derived from this property.
12. In that case, nothing more is required to be done by the Court Receiver. We vacate the attachment order in respect of this property. It is however made clear that if there is any attachment/injunction or restraint order in respect of this property passed in earlier point of time by the concerned Court in any proceeding between the parties, the same shall get revived with immediate effect on the same terms until suitably modified by the concerned Court.
13. As regards property at serial No.(iii), namely, commercial area admeasuring 4 acres in Ghaziabad being Indo Bulgar Foods Compound, Delhi Meerut Road, Ghaziabad (Crown Timber and Foods Pvt. Ltd.), the Court Receiver has received aggregate amount of Rs. 1,34,22,516/- by way of rentals. Against that the Court Receiver has spent Rs. 34,03,164/- towards outgoings in respect of the stated property. After deducting that amount, the balance Rs. 1,00,19,352/- be made over to Crown Timber and Foods Pvt. Ltd.
14. Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel appearing for Crown Timber and Foods Pvt. Ltd. assures to handover commensurate share of the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) from that amount within two weeks from the receipt of the amount from the Court Receiver in terms of this order. That assurance is recorded.
15. Similarly, the claim of ANJ Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd. which represented by Mr. Samrat Nigam, Advocate, shall also be settled by the Crown Timber and Foods Pvt. Ltd. within two weeks from the receipt of the amount from the Court Receiver.
16. Ms. Prerna Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Crown Timber and Foods Pvt. Ltd. assures to do so. That assurance is taken on record.
17. The attachment order passed by this Court in respect of property at serial No.(iv) stands vacated in terms of this order. As aforesaid, if there is any attachment/injunction or restraint order in respect of this property which was passed in earlier point of time by the concerned Court in any proceeding between the parties, the same shall get revived with immediate effect on the same terms until suitably modified by the concerned Court.
18. It was brought to our notice that the Court Receiver had collected rental income in respect of this property pursuant to order of this Court. The amount so collected shall be made over to the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) alongwith interest accrued thereon after deducting outgoings/expenses incurred for that property, if any.
19. As regards the property at serial No. (v), namely, land admeasuring 1 acre in Devli Village, Sainik Farms, New Delhi, that has already been released from attachment vide order dated 18.12.2020, hence, nothing more is required to be done.
20. As regards the property at serial No. (vi), namely, two plots in Kant Enclave, Faridabad/New Delhi, the report mentions that the property could not be traced during the inspection made by the Court Receiver.
21. Hence, nothing is required to be done with regard to the said property. We clarify that the attachment order dated 28.09.2020 passed will have no effect with regard to the property No. (vi), namely, two plots in Kant Enclave, Faridabad/New Delhi.
22. We deem it appropriate to clarify, if the Court Receiver does not have sufficient funds to make refund in terms of this order to the concerned parties in terms of our direction regards property no. (iii) or (iv), equivalent amount for disbursement could be utilized by the Court Receiver from the sale proceeds of the property No.(iv).
23. We direct the Registry to encash the FDR in relation to sale proceeds in respect of property no. (iv) bearing No. 264, Patparganj Industrial Area which has been sold to M/s. Sampada vide registered sale deed dated 29.07.2021 and transfer the amount alongwith interest accrued thereon in the account of Court Receiver, so as to facilitate the Court Receiver to disburse the further amount in the following manner:
24. The applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) has calculated the total outstanding amount towards maintenance being Rs. 1,87,40,253/- without adjusting the amounts already received from time to time being Rs. 12,24,000/-.
25. As per the statement prepared by the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi), it appears that the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) has paid amount towards school fees etc., in installments from time to time from 01.06.2018 till 23.02.2021. Out of the stated amount mentioned in the statement of the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi), we permit further adjustment of Rs. 18,00,000/-(rounded off).
26. Accordingly, the Court Receiver may adjust the amount already paid to the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) from time to time in terms of the interim order passed by this Court and further sum mentioned above and pay the excess/outstanding amount to the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) forthwith. (i.e., Rs. 1,87,40,253 – (12,24,000 + 18,00,000) = 1,57,16,253/-).
27. As regards arrangement for residence of the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) and their two children in terms of order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.05.2018 as confirmed by the Division Bench on 24.12.2019, the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) was obliged to provide it in property No. 12A, South Drive, DLF Chattarpur Farms, New Delhi within four weeks which has not been done, so far. The stated orders also note the assurance given by the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) that he will not obstruct payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- per month towards rent to the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) as recorded in paragraph 7 of the order dated 12.11.2018. Keeping that in mind, we direct the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) to pay aggregate amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) in lieu of residence as ordered in terms of stated orders for the relevant period upto this date.
28. The non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) shall, however, continue to pay sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- per month hereinafter towards rent, henceforth, until he is in a position to accommodate the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) by providing suitable residence, including at 12A, South Drive, DLF Chattarpur Farms, New Delhi or until final adjudication of this claim of the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) in that regard in pending proceedings between them.
29. In other words, the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) shall pay Rs. 5,57,500/- plus Rs. 1,35,000/- per month to the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) from here onwards before 7th of every English calendar month from 7th September, 2021, as aforesaid.
30. It is clarified that the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to be paid in terms of this order in lieu of providing residence, will have to be adjusted against the final adjudication of the claim of the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) pending against the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) in the suit proceedings pending between the parties.
31. The Court Receiver shall return the original shares/bonds deposited by the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) pursuant to order dated 16.12.2020.
32. Needless to observe that the concerned Court deciding the suit proceedings between the parties will have to consider the matter before it on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the contempt action initiated against the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi).
33. The non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) represented by Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned senior counsel states that her client has no objection to pay Rs. 21,30,000/- to Ravinder Singh Jhelumi, applicant in I.A. No. 94998 of 2021. The Court Receiver to release such amount in favour of the said Applicant (Father of the non-applicant) forthwith. The Court Receiver to do the needful.
34. We also direct payment to the Court Receiver, by way of emoluments, quantified at Rs. 5,00,000/-. We appreciate the efforts put in by her in discharging her duty of the Court Receiver.
35. The balance amount available with the Court Receiver after disbursal/adjustments in terms of this order and the payment already made by the Court Receiver from time to time, be released to the non-applicant/appellant (Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi) on unconditional undertaking being filed by him in this Court that he will continue to pay future maintenance amount, referred to above, in the sum of Rs. 5,57,500/- plus Rs. 1,35,000/- per month to the applicant/respondent (Zeeny Jhelumi) on or before 7th of every English Calendar Month, failing which it will be a case of aggravated contempt and the contempt action shall stand revived against him. Further, he shall continue to pay in terms of this order until the competent court decides the substantive proceedings between the parties.
36. Rest of the applications are disposed, leaving the parties to pursue appropriate remedy, as may be permissible in law.
37. The miscellaneous applications are disposed of accordingly.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Miscellaneous Application No(s).1005-1006/2020 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2086-2087/2020
Inderpreet Singh Jhelumi.….Non-Applicant/Appellant(s)
v.
Zeeny Jhelumi.….Applicant/Respondent(s)
IA No. 105153/2020 – APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 103754/2020 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 25132/2021 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 48613/2020 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 49031/2020 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 9261/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 121154/2020 – INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 49030/2020 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 10486/2021 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 106232/2020 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date: 24-08-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.)
Ms. Rita Chopra, Court Receiver
For Appellant(s) Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Kamakshi Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Natasha Dalmia, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Patwalia, Adv.
Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, AOR
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR
Mr. P.C. Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P.S. Sudheer, AOR
Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR
Mr. Abhimanyu Walia, Adv.
Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, AOR
Mr. Samrat Nigam, Adv.
Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
38. Application(s) for intervention/impleadment is/are allowed.
39. Miscellaneous applications and other pending applications are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
———
