The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.R. Shah, J.— All these contempt petitions being Contempt Petition (C) No. 34 of 2016, Contempt Petition (C) No. 257 of 2016 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 889 of 2017 are preferred by the respective applicants who as such were parties to Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2015 and also parties to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 4-5-2015 which ultimately was made a part of the order passed by this Court dated 5-5-2015 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1866 disposing of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2015 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 11 of 2015, to initiate the contempt proceedings against respective respondents concerned for non-compliance of the order 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1866 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.
2. The facts leading to the present contempt petitions in a nutshell are as under : That one Triveni Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tfipl”) was a joint venture company constituted of two groups — one being the Seth Group [consisting of Mr Surrender Seth, Mr Ashish Seth, M/s Ferrous Forging Ltd., M/s Ferrous Alloys Forging Pvt. Ltd. (Fafpl), M/s Ferrous Township Pvt. Ltd. (FTPL) and M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (FIPL)] and the second being the Mittal Group (consisting of Mr Sumit Mittal and Mr Madhur Mittal).
2.1. That Tifpl acquired some land at Sector 70 and some 48.05 acres of land at Sector 89, Faridabad. The said Tifpl also availed Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 from competent authorities in the year 2007 in respect of the land bearing Sector 89 with an intent to develop the said Sector 89 land. Subsequently, both the parties being Seth Group and Mittal Group agreed that the development in the said land be divided and carried out separately and thereupon the development rights in Sector 89 land, parcel of 48.03 acres of land belonging to Tifpl, was sold in the following manner:
2.2. That certain disputes arose between both the groups in respect of the payment of liabilities out of Tfipl which gave rise to various litigations including Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2015 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 11 of 2015. The disputes were referred 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1864 to mediation. A Memorandum of Settlement dated 4-5-2015 (hereinafter referred to as “MoS”) was executed between the Seth Group, Mittal Group and Tfipl. The said MoS was produced before this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2015 and this Court disposed 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1866 of the aforesaid writ petition in terms of the MoS. Under the MoS and the order 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1866 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition which was disposed of in terms of MoS dated 4-5-2015 reciprocal obligations were to be fulfilled by both the Seth Group and the Mittal Group. The obligations of the Seth Group were as mentioned in Paras 1 to 4 of Contempt Petition No. 34 of 2016 and the obligations of the Mittal Group and Tfipl were as per Clauses 5.1 to 5.9 of the contempt petition. Broadly speaking the obligations of the Seth Group and the obligations of the Mittal Group under the MoS and the order 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1866 passed by this Court were as under:
Obligations of the Seth Group
Sl. No.
Particulars
Amount in Rs (crores)
MoS Clause No.
1.
Payment to Tfipl/Mittal Group towards settlement of disputes
10.00 (court deposit) 28.50 (by four cheques) 38.50
1.1 1.1.2
2.
Licence renewal fee to Dgtcp on behalf of Tfipl/Mittal Group
1.47
1.3
3.
Bank guarantee to secure EDC
6.65
1.2.1
4.
Bank guarantee to secure IDW performance
3.55
1.4
5.
One-time consultancy charges for renewal of licence
0.25
19
6.
Transfer 50% shareholding of Seth Group in Tfipl at a price of Rs 50,000
50.00
1.5
7.
Total financial commitment under the MoS and complied with by the Seth Group
100.42
8.
Payment of DTCP on behalf of Tfipl towards EDC liability of Rs 59.05 cr of Tfipl. Seth Group has and is and shall always be willing to fulfil their obligations in terms of the MoS subject to the Mittal Group fulfilling its obligations.
25.27 On deferred payment basis
1.2
Obligations of Mittal Group
Sl. No.
Particulars
MoS Clause No.
1.
Board Resolution to be issued by Tfipl authorising Seth Group to avail the benefits under EDC relief policy of 12-4-2012 or any other future EDC relief policy announced by DTCP
1.2.1 Board Resolution
2.
General power of attorney to be issued by Tfipl in favour of FIPL (Seth Group) by 20-5-2015 i.e. within 15 days of execution of MoS to enable application for Occupancy Certificate and Completion.
53 (GPA Annexure 13)
3.
Bifurcation of licence-Tfipl is the licence-holder in respect of 48.03 acres Sector 89 land and has sold development rights of 14.8 acres to Seth Group— Application was to be made within 30 days for renewal for bifurcation/recording of beneficial interest. Mittal Group/Tfipl along with the Seth Group was to submit the same latest by 30-10-2015
8
Seth Group has already applied in terms of the renewal letter dated 1-10-2015 on 30-10-2015 and have already made the payment towards administrative charges to Dgtcp.
4.
Renew the licence till 2017 and as per undertaking on 26-10-2015 to renew till 2018.
Clause 17 and Court order dated 26-10-2015
2.3. It is the case on behalf of the Seth Group — the petitioner in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 34 of 2016 that the Seth Group has duly complied with/fulfilled its obligations under the said MoS and the order 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1866 passed by this Court, however, the Mittal Group has failed to comply with the same. It is the case on behalf of the Seth Group that non-compliance of the MoS by the Mittal Group has been wilful and intentional. It is the case on behalf of the Seth Group that the Mittal Group has failed to comply with/fulfil the following obligations which they were required to comply/fulfil as per MoS dated 4-5-2015:
Sl. No.
Particulars
1.
Board Resolution to be issued by Tfipl authorising Seth Group to avail the benefits under EDC relief policy of 12-4-2012 or any other future EDC relief policy announced by DTCP
2.
General power of attorney to be issued by Tfipl in favour of FIPL (Seth Group) by 20-5-2015 i.e. within 15 days of execution of MoS to enable application for Occupancy Certificate and Completion.
3.
Bifurcation of licence-Tfipl is the licence-holder in respect of 48.03 acres Sector 89 land and has sold development rights of 14.8 acres to Seth Group— Application was to be made within 30 days for renewal for bifurcation/recording of beneficial interest. Mittal Group/Tfipl along with the Seth Group was to submit the same latest by 30-10-2015 Seth Group has already applied in terms of the renewal letter dated 1-10-2015 on 30-10-2015 and have already made the payment towards administrative charges to Dgtcp.
4.
Renew the licence till 2017 and as per undertaking on 26-10-2015 to renew till 2018.
2.4. It is the case on behalf of the Seth Group that as agreed and as per Clause 1.2.1 of the MoS, Board resolutions were to be passed by Tfipl authorising the Seth Group to avail the benefits under EDC relief policy of 12-4-2012 or any other future EDC relief policy announced by DTCP, which resolution is not passed. It is the case on behalf of the Seth Group that as per Clause 5.3 of the MoS, Tfipl was required to issue general power of attorney in favour of FIPL (Seth Group) by 20-5-2015 i.e. within 15 days of execution of the MoS to enable applicants for occupation and completion certificate. It is submitted that no such general power of attorney has been executed. It is also the case on behalf of the Seth Group that as per Clause 8 of the MoS, the licensees were required to be bifurcated in respect of 48.03 acres Sector 89 land to the extent of 14.8 acres for which the development rights were sold to the Seth Group. It is the case on behalf of the Seth Group that under Clause 8 of the MoS, Tfipl was required to take steps for recording of change of beneficial interest to delineate the share of the Seth Group in the 48.03 acres land. According to the Seth Group, policy dated 8-2-2015 required that an NOC be given by Tfipl/Mittal Group which should have been given within 30 days of renewal of licence. It is the case on behalf of the Seth Group that Tfipl/Mittal Group instead issued a conditional NOC dated 19-4-2016 with 22 frivolous conditions, which conditions were contrary to the MoS and/or as per the requisite format as required by Dgtcp. It is submitted that consequently the said NOC was rejected by Dgtcp. It is submitted therefore that in effect, there has been no substantial compliance of the MoS regarding issuance of NOC by Tfipl/Mittal Group till date.
2.5. It is further the case on behalf of the Seth Group that under Clause 17 of the MoS, it was the responsibility of the Mittal Group to obtain renewal of licence granted by DTCP in respect of the entire 48.03 acres of Sector 89 land. It is the case on behalf of the Seth Group that without any intention to actually renew the licence and to only comply with the order on paper, the Mittal Group applied for renewal of licence vide application dated 7-1-2016 without complying with any of the conditions of renewal. It is submitted that one of the conditions by DTCP was the payment of EDC charges in terms of the EDC relief policy dated 12-4-2012. It is submitted that the said EDC charges were payable for the entire licence land by Tfipl and as on that date amounted to Rs 59.05 crores. It is submitted that the Seth Group undertook to pay Rs 25.27 crores out of the total liability of Rs 59.05 crores on behalf of Tfipl of which Rs 9.4 crores was already paid by the Seth Group. However, the Mittal Group failed to make payment of a single penny to DTCP towards EDC either of the entire 59.05 crores or of the balance share payable after providing for 25.27 crores offered to be paid by the Seth Group on behalf of the Mittal Group of 59.05 crores. It is submitted that as a consequence of the action/inaction of the Mittal Group, the application for renewal of licence was rejected by DTCP.
2.6. It is the case on behalf of the Seth Group that the Mittal Group and Tfipl have deliberately and wilfully not complied with/fulfilled their obligations under the MoS dated 4-5-2015 and therefore they have rendered themselves liable for the action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is submitted that non-compliance is deliberate and wilful.
2.7. It appears that Director of M/s Maximal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has also filed two separate contempt petitions being Contempt Petition No. 257 of 2016 and Contempt Petition No. 889 of 2017 against the Seth Group alleging non-compliance of the relevant terms/clauses of the MoS.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Seth Group that Clauses 1.2.1, 12 and 3.2 of the MoS clearly contemplate that the Seth Group's liability as far as EDC liability of Tfipl would be limited to an amount of Rs 25,27,92,000 out of the total liability payable by Tfipl to DTCP towards EDC being Rs 59.05 crores. It is submitted that immediately after entering into the MoS, Seth Group has undisputedly paid Rs 9.40 crores against its assumed liability of Rs 25,27,92,000 in favour of the Chief Administrator, DTCP. Seth Group in addition has also given a bank guarantee of Rs 6.65 crores to DTCP towards its EDC liability. It is submitted that after paying such huge amounts by Seth Group, the Mittal Group has not paid a single penny towards their part of the EDC liability and did not renew the licence nor did it provide GPA, Board Resolution and/or unconditional NOC, as was required under the MoS, which was to be given to the Seth Group. This prevented Seth Group from getting DTCP to avail the benefit of the EDC Relief Policy and work out the payment schedule in order to clear its share of the EDC liability.
4. It is submitted that as on the date of MoS, an EDC Relief Policy was in existence which allowed payment of EDC over various instalments. The bank guarantee was specifically given by the Seth Group so that they could avail the benefits of the then existing EDC Relief Policy as specifically contemplated under Clause 1.2.1 of the MoS. The Seth Group has been prevented from availing the entitlement under the relief policy by the Mittal Group as the Mittal Group had and till date has no intention to repay its own EDC liability and/or to resolve the entire issue of bifurcation of Seth Group's portion of land, which was clearly contemplated in the MoS.
5. It is further submitted that violations on the part of the Mittal Group, namely, non-renewal of licence bearing Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2007; no steps are taken by Tfipl to bifurcate the licence; and non-issuance of GPA/NOC are deliberate and wilful and contrary to the MoS and the basic intent and purpose of entering into the MoS which was to provide for complete severance between the Seth Group and the Mittal Group from Tfipl and from the development of the 48.03 acres of land. It is due to the non-compliance of the obligations by the Mittal Group on the Seth Group and other stakeholders, the basic intent under the MoS has not been achieved.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the Seth Group that the effect of the non-compliance of the obligations by the Mittal Group on the Seth Group and other stakeholders is as under:
6.1. The basic intent under the MoS was to provide for complete severance between the Seth Group and the Mittal Group from Tfipl and from the development of the 48.03 acres of land, which has not been achieved due to the defaults by the Mittal Group.
6.2. The severance cannot take place without recording of change of beneficial interest in the land, which in turn cannot be done without renewal of the licence and without complying with the conditions stipulated by Dgtcp.
6.3. One of the conditions laid down by DTCP for renewing the licence was issuance of an NOC as per the requisite format. Since the NOC was conditional and not as per format, the renewal of licence too has been rejected and the change in beneficial interest not being recorded. This has rendered the entire settlement under the MoS as otiose and has led to parting of huge sums of money by the Seth Group without having the desired effect at all.
6.4. The most important consequence of all this is that because of non-renewal of licence coupled with non-bifurcation of the licence, the Seth Group has been unable to handover the possession to 700 flat owners of its Project “Ferrous City” on the 14.80 acres of land falling in its share. It has further been unable to sell and/or utilise the unsold stock of 126 flats which can be utilised to generate funds to pay the only remaining outstanding liabilities of the Seth Group under the MoS.
7. It is submitted that in terms of Clause 5.8 of the MoS, the Mittal Group agreed not to resign from the Board of Directors of Tfipl and not to transfer majority/controlling shareholding of Tfipl till renewal of licences. However, perusal of the recent balance sheets of Tfipl shows that the said balance sheets have not been signed by the Mittal brothers, namely, Mr Sumit Mittal (Contemnor 1) and Mr Madhur Mittal (Contemnor 2), but has been signed by proxies of the contemnors. This has been done in order to avoid sanctions from this Court or any other court.
8. Making the above submissions, it is prayed to issue the following directions:
(a) Direct Mr Sumit Mittal (Contemnor 1) and Mr Madhur Mittal (Contemnor 2) and Tfipl to pay the entire EDC liability of Tfipl in relation to Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 other than the share of the EDC liability which the Seth Group has undertaken to pay.
(b) Declare that Seth Group's EDC liability was only up to an amount of Rs 25,27,92,000 out of the total EDC liability of Tfipl, in relation to Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 as on 24-3-2015 together with interest accrued thereon from 24-3-2015. Out of this, Seth Group has already paid Rs 9.40 crores vide DD No. 501599 dated 1-8-2016 and has also given a bank guarantee of Rs 6.65 crores to DTCP towards its EDC liability. Seth Group is not liable to any other EDC payment in respect of Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36.
(c) Direct DTCP to bifurcate the Seth Group's portion of the land.
(d) Direct DTCP to raise a fresh demand on Tfipl for the entire outstanding liability of Tfipl and set out the payment schedule as per their applicable EDC relief policy.
(e) Direct Mittal Group to renew the licences as per their obligations set out under Clause 17, provide general power of attorney by Tfipl (as per Clause 5.3), Board Resolution by Tfipl for availing benefit under EDC Relief Policy (as per Clause 1.2.1), NOC without any conditions (as per Clause 8) to the Seth Group.
(f) Direct Mr Sumit Mittal (Contemnor 1) and Mr Madhur Mittal (Contemnor 2) to deposit their passports in Court and list the matter after a few weeks to determine if the Mittal Group has complied with the orders passed by this Court.
9. It is submitted that the above prayers will not only resolve the various issues between the Mittal Group and Seth Group but will also resolve the plight of various homebuyers who are suffering because of the fraud played by the Mittal Group who are not complying with any of their obligations under the MoS and are conveniently resigning from the companies which are owned and controlled by them after siphoning off moneys paid by the Seth Group to them so that they can evade any liability.
10. Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Mittal Group has submitted as under:
10.1. Mittal Group/Tfipl/Maximal have not committed any breach or disobedience of the terms and conditions of the MoS dated 4-5-2015.
10.2. The contempt petition filed by the Seth Group is a farce, motivated and a ruse/ploy so as to create artificial/imaginary circumstances to cover up their wilful and intentional acts of omission and commission of having failed to fulfil their obligations qua their allottees, who have invested in the project of the Seth Group, part of which is incomplete and the remaining unsafe for habitation as per the report of the Commission appointed by RERA.
10.3. In view of the order dated 1-10-2019 passed by RERA in Complaint No. 826 of 2018—“Ferrous Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Maximal Infrastructure (P) Ltd.” and Complaint No. 1402 of 2018—“Maximal Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Ferrous Infrastructure (P) Ltd.”, the present contempt petition is rendered infructuous. The alleged issues/acts of disobedience raised by Seth Group have been delineated and put to rest by the competent authority—RERA, Haryana. RERA, Haryana has put to rest the following issues:
(i) No objection to LC report filed.
(ii) Major violation in Zone A.
(iii) Grant of occupation certificate to the developer in 48.038 acres of land under Licence Nos. 34-36 of 2007.
(iv) Quantification of EDC liability and mode and manner of payment of EDC liability qua respective developers including that of Ferrous project (developed by Seth Group).
(v) Renewal of licence qua each of developers.
(vi) Condition of obtaining NOC for bifurcation of licence from licences i.e. Maximal is no longer applicable.
(vii) Direction to DTCP, Haryana to deal with flagrant deviations and violation in the construction at the project site.
(viii) Prohibited from offering possession.
11. With respect to the obligations of the Seth Group, it is submitted as under:
Sl. No.
Particulars
Amount (Rs in crores)
Reply of contemnors
1.
Payment to Maximal
38.50
Seth Group defaulted in payment of the last instalment compelling the contemnors to file a contempt petition before this Court bearing No. 714/2015. It is on filing of the contempt petition that Seth Group in obedience of MoS paid the last instalment of Rs 6 crores.
2.
Licence fee to DTCP, Haryana in terms of Clause 1.3
1.47
It is falsely stated that Rs 1.47 crores was paid by Seth Group. Seth Group paid Rs 93.50 lakhs approximately, proportionate to their share of land out of 48.038 acres situated in Sector 89, Faridabad. Clause 1.3 relied upon is to be read in conjunction with Clause 2 of the MoS.
3.
Bank guarantee to secure payment of EDC (External Development Charges)
6.65
Seth Group in discharge of its obligation to pay furnished this BG, which is returnable to Seth Group. This condition is no longer applicable in view of the order dated 1-10-20193 (RERA).
4.
Bank guarantee to secure IDW (Internal Development Work)
3.55
Seth Group in discharge of its obligation to construct the project in accordance with law furnished this BG, which is returnable to Seth Group.
5.
Consultancy fee
0.25
The licence was expired since the year 2009. There were enumerable formalities to be completed for renewal of licence w.e.f. the date of its expiry. It was unanimously agreed to engage the services of a third party for the renewal of the licence.
6.
Transfer of shareholding
50.00
It is falsely stated that Rs 50 crores was paid by Seth Group to Maximal. Seth Group held 500 shares in Maximal. Seth Group opted to divert their shareholding to exit from the Company. Mittal Group agreed to acquire the shares and paid consideration to Seth Group.
It is therefore misleading and outrageous to mention that the transferor of shares viz. Seth Group paid any amount to the transferee (Mittal Group).
7.
Total financial commitment
100.42
That the amount mentioned is misleading and blatantly false. The Seth Group in lieu of land admeasuring 66.77 acres situated in Sector 70, Faridabad, which was fraudulently transferred have paid only Rs 38.50 crores to former owner i.e. Maximal against then market value of the said land which is approximately Rs 300 crores.
8.
Payment to DTCP, Haryana
25.27
In terms of Clause 1.2 of the MoS, additional document filed on 21-12-2019 (IA 197372), Seth Group undertook to pay Rs 25.27 crores together with interest to DTCP, Haryana on behalf of Maximal. In view of the order dated 1-10-20193 (RERA) this condition is no longer applicable.
12. Now, so far as the obligations of the Mittal Group, it is submitted on behalf of Mittal Group as under:
Sl. No.
Particulars
MoS Clause
Reply of contemnors
1.
Board Resolution
1.2.1
A copy of the Board Resolution dated 29-5-2015 was forwarded to Seth Group. Seth Group while acknowledging the receipt approved the contents and sought cooperation, if any issue arises in the absence of original resolution. The original resolution is part of the minute book and the extract thereof was shared with Seth Group on 29-5-2015.
2.
GPA to be issued by Tfipl in favour of FIPL
5.3
Under Clause 5.3 additional document filed on 21-12-2019 (IA 197372), it was agreed that Tfipl would execute a registered GPA in favour of FIPL. Till 29-5-2015 no one came from FIPL to get the GPA registered.
An email was issued dated 29-5-2015 requiring Seth Group to furnish a stamp paper for GPA and also make themselves available before the office of Sub-Registrar. In response to the said mail Seth Group vide email dated 23-6-2015 informed that they do not want to register the GPA. This was in contravention to the agreed terms of MoS. As an abundant caution the Mittal Group on their own took the initiative of seeking approval of DTCP, Haryana to execute a registered GPA in favour of Seth Group to enable them to deal with their project without any impediment. Since the Seth Group did not come forward for collection of the GPA and its registration the Mittal Group through their attorney provided Seth Group duly executed GPA by the executants vide letter dated 4-7-2016.
3.
Bifurcation of licence and non grant of NOC by Maximal
8
NOC was provided by the contemnors and filed with DTCP, Haryana on 19-4-2016. NOC is acknowledged by DTCP, Haryana and found in order vide note sheet dated 13-5-2016. As per “Clause 8”, parties agreed to jointly apply for change of developer i.e. from Tfipl, to FIPL in terms of the agreement dated 15-6-2007 and in terms of policy of DTCP, Haryana dated 18-2-2015. As per email dated 27-10-2015 the contemnors reiterated that filing of application is a joint obligation and all documents to be submitted in that regard with DTCP, Haryana are ready, however, as per conditions of policy the new entity was also required to submit various information, which the contemnors were not aware much less being shared with the said information. Seth Group in contravention to the joint obligation unilaterally applied for
bifurcation of licence. The application got rejected on 13-10-2016 for various reasons including lack of technical and financial capacity of the Seth Group. The rejection order since not assailed, attained finality. Before RERA, Maximal not only agreed to offer their cooperation for bifurcation of licence but submitted that all formalities on the part of the landowner/licensee be dispensed with to expedite the same. This contention is accepted by RERA vide order dated 1-10-20193.
4.
Renewal of licence
17
Maximal in terms of order dated 26-10-2015 agreed to apply for renewal of licence on its expiry. Maximal applied for renewal of licence on 7-1-2016 as licence was expiring on 22-1-2016. Since there was inaction on the part of the department, Maximal filed a writ petition before the Chandigarh High Court for direction against the department. While directing the department the writ petition was posted for hearing on 5-7-2016. DTCP, Haryana vide order dated 4-7-2016 declined to renew the licence for non-compliance of the conditions mentioned in “Paras 3 and 4” of the order. The conditions mentioned in “Para 3” were fully complied with as recorded in the office note dated 25-1-2016. However, Maximal was prevented from filing any appeal/challenge against the said order dated 4-7-2016, as the Seth Group declined to pay EDC, which was a prerequisite condition and a ground of rejection as mentioned in “Para 4” of the order dated 4-7-2016.
5.
Responsibility to defend 138 proceedings
20 of MoS
The Mittal Group and Seth Group were acquitted and an appeal filed by the complainant is pending adjudication.
12.1. The renewal of the licence is as per the HUDA Act, Rules and Regulations and not as per the requirement of the licensee. The licence was initially granted on 23-1-2007 and valid up to 22-1-2009. As per then HUDA Rules, the licence was renewable for a period of one year. That as per subsequent amendment, the licence was renewable for a period of two years. In the present case, the licence in question was applied for renewal pursuant to settlement in the month of June 2015 and it got renewed by the department against payment of charges for each renewal period. Mittal Group applied for renewal of licence on 7-1-2016 for a period of two years in compliance of order dated 26-10-2015. However, the licence could not be renewed for the reasons set out in tabular form Serial No. 4 hereinabove.
12.2. That as per the letter dated 27-3-2015, EDC liability was divided into two parts:
(i) Payable against 33.238 acres which includes project of 4 developers and;
(ii) Payable against 14.80 acres payable by Tidco (Company under Liquidation) through auction-purchaser. This bifurcation and quantification of EDC liability was accepted by OL.
12.3. Seth Group in wilful defiance of the settlement did not pay the EDC. The Seth Group influenced DTCP, Haryana to withdraw the order dated 27-3-2015 to wriggle out of the settlement. DTCP, Haryana arbitrarily without any basis, vide letter dated 10-1-2017 withdrew the letter dated 27-3-2015. That the appellant authority has stayed the effect of the letter dated 10-1-2017 and the division of liability vide letter dated 27-3-2015 is still in force and is now for all intents and purposes confirmed by RERA vide order dated 1-10-2019. That the liability of developer including that of the Seth Group will be determined by DTCP, Haryana and paid to the department without the involvement of Mittal Group/contemnors.
13. That as per order dated 1-10-2019 passed by RERA, the following has been ordered:
13.1. Bifurcation/Division of licence of all the developers of 48.038 acres of land situated at Sector 89, Faridabad including that of petitioner i.e. their entity FIPL.
13.2. Renewal of licence for each of the developers by DTCP, Haryana on bifurcation.
13.3. Separate quantification of EDC and other statutory liabilities of each of the developers proportionate to their share of land.
13.4. Grant of occupation certificate, possession, etc. as per law on removal of all unauthorised and illegal construction to be determined by DTCP, Haryana.
13.5. All or any formality requiring involvement of Maximal has been dispensed with.
13.6. In light of the subsequent development and order dated 1-10-2019 passed by RERA, as such, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. Now, so far as submission on behalf of the Seth Group as regards nonpayment of EDC to DTCP by Maximal, it is submitted that under the MoS dated 4-5-2015 there is no such condition and/or obligation on the part of Maximal to pay any EDC to DTCP. It is submitted that as such the same was not even the case so prayed in the contempt petition. The contempt petition filed by the Seth Group was limited and confined to the alleged disobedience by Maximal as follows:
(a) Non-issuance of GPA.
(b) Non-issuance of Board Resolution.
(c) Non-issuance of NOC for bifurcation.
14.1. In fact, Tfipl/Maximal/Mittal Group in their contempt petition have subsequently pleaded disobedience of Seth Group by not paying External Development Charges (EDC) of Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2007 as determined by memo dated 27-3-2015 to Rs 25.27 crores (as on 24-3-2015) together with interest in terms of Clause 1.2.1 of the MoS and the undertaking given to this Court.
14.2. That there is no condition and/or undertaking of Maximal to pay the differential amount of Rs 33.78 crores in the MoS dated 4-5-2015 and thus no mode and manner is provided in the MoS to pay the differential EDC amount i.e. Rs 33.78 crores. This amount is payable by a separate and distinct entity Tidco having the beneficial interest and ownership in land proportionate to which this amount is determined by the letter dated 27-3-2015 issued by DTCP, Haryana. The issue regarding payment of EDC by the project developer, namely, viz. Tidco of Rs 33.78 crores (determined by letter dated 27-3-2015) being the beneficial amount has attained finality. The memo dated 27-3-2015 is the mother document which defines the obligations of each of the parties and the same came into existence by taking into consideration the MoS dated 27-3-2015. It is submitted therefore that if the MoS dated 27-3-2015 is considered as non-existent, then the MoS dated 4-5-2015 must fall.
14.3. It is submitted that even otherwise Maximal has no financial liability to pay any amounts. Maximal and other licensee divested of their right, title and interest in 48.08 acres way back in the year 2007-2008. The licensees are left with no interest in the project land. Tidco is one of the project developers and has beneficial interest in part of the project land. Maximal as well as the Mittal Group have nowhere agreed to pay the amounts for and on behalf of Tidco being the beneficial owner of the project land.
14.4. It is submitted that the mala fides of Seth Group are apparent and writ large from the very fact that on one hand licensees in the larger interest are wanting bifurcation of licence in favour of Seth Group and other co-developers of the entire land whereas the Seth Group has taken every possible course and has left no stone unturned to negate/nullify the bifurcation of EDC liability vide letter dated 27-3-2015 and subsequent thereto bifurcation of licence vide letter dated 1-10-2015. The change of beneficial interest has been allowed by RERA vide order dated 1-10-2019 and there is no stay of the order. It is the Seth Group which has failed to honour their obligation under the MoS and is trying to negate both the letters to create an artificial and imaginary alibi for not honouring their obligations under the MoS dated 4-5-2015 of paying EDC liability of Rs 25.27 crores together with interest accrued as on date.
14.5. It is submitted that as such Seth Group has not fulfilled its obligations/conditions/undertaking and paid the amount of Rs 25,27,92,000 and therefore as such Seth Group is liable to be prosecuted and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act for which the respondents—Maximal/Mittal Group have filed the contempt petitions.
14.6. It is submitted that therefore there is no non-compliance on the part of Mittal Group, much less the wilful disobedience of the MoS and the order 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1866 passed by this Court and therefore it is prayed for to dismiss the contempt petition filed by Seth Group.
15. In reply, it is submitted on behalf of Seth Group that so far as the submission on behalf of Mittal Group in their defence that there are large-scale violations in the construction undertaken by the Seth Group in the portion of the licence to lands falling within the Seth Group area is concerned, it is submitted that the same has no relevance to the present contempt proceedings. What Seth Group does in its own share of the land is not relevant for the MoS in the present proceedings. The Mittal Group is only raising these issues in order to sidetrack the main issue that they have been in contempt of their undertaking before this Court. It is submitted that even otherwise FIPL of the Seth Group has cured its non-compoundable violations in its construction. It is submitted that if the bifurcation of the licence had taken place, the frivolous issues raised by Mittal Group would have been the exclusive liability of the Seth Group. It is submitted that in any case and as submitted hereinabove, the Mittal Group has failed to fulfil its obligation under the MoS, which subsequently became the part of the order passed by this Court and the disobedience/non-compliance is deliberate and wilful and for this they are liable to be prosecuted and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.
16. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
16.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the present proceedings are filed by the respective parties to the MoS dated 4-5-2015, which subsequently was made the order passed by this Court dated 5-5-2015 to initiate appropriate proceedings against each other under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is not in dispute that all were parties to the MoS/consent order.
16.2. Before discussing the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the background which ultimately led to the MoS dated 4-5-2015, is required to be referred to and considered.
16.3. Criminal proceedings were initiated against Ashish Seth of Seth Group and others which was the subject-matter before this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2015. The disputes involved were commercial disputes. It appears that during the course of hearing, a suggestion was given, as the controversy in the case pertained to payment of money as alleged, that the matter be sent for mediation. This Court, with the consent of the parties, sent 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1863 the matter for mediation, subject to Ashish Seth depositing a sum of Rs 10 crores before this Court. That Ashish Seth deposited the sum of Rs 10 crores. This Court requested 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1864 Mr Justice R.V. Ravindran, a former Judge of this Court, to mediate between the parties. Thereafter, the learned Mediator mediated and initially submitted the interim report.
17. The interim report of the learned Mediator reads as follows:
“This Hon'ble Court by order 9-2-2015 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1864, referred the matter to mediation so as to enable the parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement.
In pursuance of the above, mediation meetings were held on 14-2-2015, 16-2-2015, 17-2-2015, 18-2-2015, 10-3-2015, 15-3-2015 and 17-4-2015 at New Delhi. The meetings were attended by Mr Surender Seth and Mr Ashish Seth with their counsel, Mr Sachin Puri on one side, and Mr Sumit Mittal and Mr Madhur Mittal with their counsel Mr Sanjay S. Chhabra on the other side.
After detailed negotiations and discussions and exchange of various alternatives, parties have arrived at a broad consensus, without prejudice to their respective rights and contentions. Parties are further negotiating to give shape to the terms agreed, in a manner which will effectively express what has been agreed, and put an end to the disputes and at the same time safeguarding their respective interests.
As several issues relating to legal and taxation issues require to be sorted out with the advice of experts, the parties have not been able to finalise the terms and execute the Memorandum of Settlement.
On the joint request of the parties, further mediation meetings are scheduled for 11-4-2015, 12-4-2015 and 15-4-2015 for further negotiations and finalisation of the draft Memorandum of Settlement.
It is expected that the said process is likely to take at least two more weeks and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the time for completion of mediation process be extended till the end of this month.”
18. Thereafter, all the parties settled all the disputes and entered into the Memorandum of Settlement dated 4-5-2015. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the MoS dated 4-5-2015 was amongst (i) Shri Surender Seth; (ii) Shri Ashish Seth; (iii) M/s Ferrous Forging Ltd.; (iv) M/s Ferrous Alloy Forging Pvt. Ltd.; (v) M/s Ferrous Township Pvt. Ltd. and (vi) M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (all belonging to Seth Group) as the first party and (i) Shri Sumit Mittal; (ii) Shri Madhur Mittal (belonging to Mittal Group) as the second party and M/s Triveni Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as the third party.
19. The Preamble of the MoS reads as under:
“preamble:
whereas Tfipl is an Infrastructure Development Company in which the Seth Group represents that it holds 50% share (i.e. FFL and Fafpl have 33% and 17% shares respectively); and Mittal Group represents that it holds the remaining 50% share;
whereas disputes arose among the Seth Group on the one hand and the Mittal Group on the other, with respect to lands admeasuring 37.58125 acres and 29.1953 acres, situated at Sector 70, Faridabad (Haryana) on account of Mittal Group claiming that the Seth Group should pay certain amounts to Tfipl and on account of certain issues relating to management and maintenance of statutory records and books of account of Tfipl.
whereas the said disputes have given rise to the following legal proceedings which are either pending in courts of law and/or are under investigation by the competent authority:
(a) Company petition bearing CP No. 158 (ND) of 2013 filed by Fafpl and FFL against Tfipl, Sumit Mittal, Madhur Mittal and others qua the affairs of Tfipl, pending before Company Law Board, New Delhi;
(b) Complaint Case No. 613 of 2014 pending before the Jurisdictional Magistrate at Agra (U.P.) arising from FIR No. 513/2014 against Surender Seth, Ashish Seth and others, registered at Police Station, New Agra, Agra;
(c) FIR No. 808/2014 against Surender Seth, Ashish Seth and others, registered with the Economic Offence Wing, New Delhi;
(d) Crl. MC No. 5621 of 2014 on the file of Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Ashish Seth v. State and Another);
(e) Crl. MC No. 5622 of 2014 on the file of Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Surender Seth v. State and Another);
(f) WP (Crl.) No. 5 of 2015 on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India [Ashish Seth v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others];
(g) WP (Crl.) No. 11 of 2015 on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India [Surender Seth v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others].
whereas Criminal Case No. 235 of 2014, filed by one Mr Hari Mohan Gupta (a witness in FIR No. 513/2014) against Ashish Seth is pending before the Special Judge, Agra (U.P.) and Ashish Seth has filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC being Petition No. 134 of 2015, before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, for quashing the said proceedings.
whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the proceedings mentioned at Serial Nos. (f) and (g) above, vide order dated 14-1-2015 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1863 referred the parties to mediation and subsequently, vide order dated 9-2-2015 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1864 requested Justice R.V. Ravindran, former Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to act as a Mediator to assist the parties to arrive at a negotiated settlement;
whereas after deliberations and discussions between the two groups over several sittings, the parties have agreed to resolve all their disputes amicably as per the terms hereinafter set out.”
20. Thus, the parties entered into the MoS and agreed to resolve all their disputes amicably. Therefore, as such, all the parties to the MoS dated 4-5-2015 are bound to comply with the relevant terms and conditions and their respective obligations. As per the terms of the settlement agreed between the parties, there are certain obligations to be fulfilled by the respective parties, which the respective parties are bound to fulfil and comply with in its true spirit. The obligations of Seth Group are specifically mentioned in Clauses 1 to 1.5.1. The Seth Group has further agreed and undertaken to perform their part of obligations with the Mittal Group and Tfipl as mentioned in Clauses 3 to 3.14 and Clause C. Similarly, the Mittal Group and Tfipl's obligations, representations and warranties are also specifically mentioned in Clause D, which are specifically mentioned in Clauses 5 to 5.9.
21. As agreed between the parties and in consideration of the obligations in Clauses 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 and on furnishing of all requisite bank guarantees as required in terms of Clause 1.2 by the Seth Group under the MoS, all FIRs, complaints and cases mentioned in Clause 6.1 to Clause 7 were required to be withdrawn/quashed/cancelled/terminated. The joint obligations of the parties are specifically mentioned in Clause F (relevant Clauses 8 and 9). As per Clause 10, Tfipl and Mittal Group confirmed that there are no outstanding claims of Seth Group or any of its constituents under the agreement dated 15-7-2007 in respect of FSI admeasuring 11,28,204 sq ft including FSI for EWS calculated on a total area of 14.80 acres on the land situated in Sector 89 Faridabad under Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2007 granted in the name of Tfipl and others. Clause 12 which is an important and relevant clause reads as under:
“12. It is hereby confirmed that other than the payment of the EDC amount required to be made under Clause 1.2.1 and under Clause 3.8 above, Seth Group shall not be liable for any other EDC payment under Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2007 either on renewal and/or upon bifurcation of Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2007, except to the extent of Rs 25,27,92,000 together with interest accrued thereon from 24-3-2015, imposed by DTCP, Haryana. It is further clarified that the liability to pay EDC of Seth Group in a sum of Rs 25,27,92,000 against the total EDC liability of Rs 59.05 crores as on 24-3-2015, shall not be varied subject, however, to the condition that in the event of the total liability, which has been assessed at Rs 59.05 crores as on 23-4-2015, being revised from Rs 59.05 crores, to any higher amount as on 24-3-2015, on account of revised calculation or similar reason. In such eventuality, the Seth Group will bear the proportionate increase in regard to the amount in excess of Rs 59.05 crores.”
22. Clause G is specifically with respect to renewal of licences, more particularly, Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2007. The relevant clauses with respect to renewal of licences are Clauses 17, 18 and 19, which read as under:
“17. Mittal Group shall apply for renewal of licence by 23-6-2015 subject to compliance of Clauses 1.2 (to the extent of providing bank guarantee), 1.3 and 1.4 by the Seth Group. The Seth Group have provided documents/undertakings with respect to the lands falling to share of the Seth Group under Agreement dated 15-6-2007 i.e. (i) Status of construction/allotment of EWS Flats, and (ii) Service Plan status, its drawing, estimates and its approval from HUDA, Chandigarh annexed as Annexure 16, to enable Mittal Group to apply for renewal of licence. Seth Group does not have any further document in this regard, however, it is clarified that in case any indemnity, undertaking, letter and/or similar document is required to be executed after filing of the application for renewal of licence, pertaining to the lands falling in the share of Seth Group under Agreement dated 15-6-2007, Seth Group shall do the needful at the earliest if so requested by Mittal Group.
18. On application made for renewal of licence in terms of Clause 17, Mittal Group will secure renewal of licence within 90 days. All administrative and miscellaneous charges, compounding fee, penalties and other charges levied and payable by PAL, ORS and Heritage for renewal of licence shall be paid by the Mittal Group. All such charges in respect of FIPL agreement shall be exclusively paid/borne by Seth Group by similarly paying to Tfipl immediately on being demanded.
19. Seth Group shall pay a sum of Rs 25,00,000 (Twenty-five lakhs only) to Mittal Group for hiring/engaging consultancy services for renewal of Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2007 in favour of Tfipl at the time of filing of the application for renewal of licence by the Mittal Group.”
23. As per Clause 27, with the execution of the said MoS and subject to compliance of undertaking and fulfilment of all obligations of the Seth Group and Mittal Group/Tfipl as undertaken in the MoS, it was agreed between the parties that all pending disputes amongst the parties shall stand resolved and Tfipl and/or Mittal Group have no claim of any nature against the Seth Group and similarly Seth Group shall have no claim of any nature against Tfipl and/or Mittal Group. The MoS further provides the consequences of breach/non-payment of the amounts. The relevant clauses are Clauses 36, 37 and 38, which read as under:
“36. In the event of any default by Seth Group of their obligations and warranties, the Mittal Group and Tfipl will be entitled to initiate legal proceeding for enforcing performance of the obligations/warranties given by Seth Group, including initiation of contempt proceedings against the Seth Group in accordance with law.
37. In case there is a default in payment as agreed in Clauses 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 of furnishing of all requisite bank guarantees as required in terms of Clause 1.2 by the Seth Group, the Mittal Group and Tfipl will also be entitled to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court for revival of the complaints/FIRs stated at Serial Nos. (b) and (c) of the list of cases mentioned in the Preamble above. Provided however, on Mittal Group and Tfipl obtaining performance of the obligations, the revised criminal proceedings and contempt proceedings, if any, shall be terminated.
38. In the event of any default by Mittal Group of their obligations and warranties, the Seth Group will be entitled to initiate legal proceeding for enforcing performance of the obligations/warranties given by the Mittal Group, including initiation of contempt proceedings against the Mittal Group in accordance with law.”
24. This MoS was placed before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and this Court recorded the settlement in entirety and as agreed between the parties and as prayed, the MoS dated 4-5-2015 became a part of the order 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1866 and this Court directed the parties to adhere to the terms and conditions of the settlement and the undertakings given therein. This Court specifically further observed that every facet of it shall tantamount to an order of this Court and in case of failure the parties shall be at liberty to move this Court for an appropriate direction. Thus, as per the MoS and even as per the order passed by this Court dated 5-5-2015 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1866, all the parties to the MoS shall have to comply with and/or fulfil their respective obligations as mentioned in the MoS dated 4-5-2015. As observed hereinabove, the disputes were commercial disputes and therefore all the parties to the disputes agreed to resolve all their disputes, which culminated into the MoS and thereafter the order passed by this Court.
25. The entire object and purpose of entering into the settlement was to resolve all the disputes between the parties. Therefore, it is the duty of the court that the settlement entered into between the parties and the consent order passed by this Court should be given effect to in its letter and spirit. All the parties to the consent terms are required to fully comply with the terms of settlement/consent terms and the consent order. One party cannot be permitted to say that that portion of the settlement which is in their favour be executed and/or complied with and not the other terms of the settlement/consent terms/consent order.
25.1. From the facts narrated hereinabove and even otherwise considering the relevant clauses of the MoS and the obligations to be fulfilled by the respective parties to the MoS, it appears that Seth Group have fully complied with their obligations, except deposit of the total amount of Rs 25.27 crores—payment to DTCP towards initial liability of Rs 59.05 crores of Tfipl. It appears that Seth Group have already paid Rs 9.40 crores against the total liability of Rs 25.27 crores towards EDC liability against the total liability of Rs 59.05 crores of Tfipl as per Clause 1.2.
25.2. It appears that the balance amount is not deposited by the Seth Group as the Mittal Group have not fulfilled their obligations under the MoS. It is stated at the Bar that the Seth Group is always ready and willing to fulfil their obligations in terms of the MoS i.e. their liability as per Clause 1.2, subject to Mittal Group fulfilling its obligations. From the material on record, it appears that the Mittal Group have not fulfilled their obligations as per Clause 1.2, Clause 5.3 and Clause 8. Neither the Mittal Group nor Tfipl have deposited the balance amount to be paid towards EDC liability of Rs 59.05 crores (deducting Rs 25.27 crores to be paid by the Seth Group as per Clause 1.2).
25.3. It is the case on behalf of the Mittal Group that it is the liability of Tidco and not the Mittal Group and in the MoS there is no specific term and the obligation that the said amount is to be paid by the Mittal Group.
25.4. It is required to be noted that all the terms and conditions/obligations of the Seth Group, Mittal Group and Tfipl are required to be read conjointly. Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2007 are required to be transferred in favour of Seth Group. It appears that Tfipl acquired some land at Sector 70 and some 48.03 acres of land at Sector 89, Faridabad. Tfipl also availed Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 from the competent authorities in the year 2007 in respect of land bearing at Sector 89 with an intent to develop the Sector 89 land. Subsequently, however, both the parties — Seth Group and Mittal Group agreed that it would be the best that the development of the said land be divided and carried out separately and thereupon the development rights in the Sector 89 land parcel of 48.03 acres of land belonging to Tfipl was sold in the manner mentioned as under:
25.5. The liability of Rs 59.05 crores was with respect to the entire land—48.03 acres at Sector 89, Faridabad. Therefore, the liability of the Seth Group would be with respect to their share out of 48.03 acres which, as agreed between the parties, would come to Rs 25.27 crores and therefore the balance is naturally required to be paid by Mittal Group/Tfipl. Unless and until the entire amount is deposited with DTCP towards EDC, the aforesaid licences cannot be renewed and after renewal they are required to be bifurcated and transferred.
25.6. As the Mittal Group has refused to deposit the balance amount of EDC (after deducting Rs 25.27 crores which is the liability of Seth Group as per Clause 1.2), the licences are not being renewed thereafter. If the contention and the submission on behalf of the Mittal Group are accepted, in that case, the entire MoS would be unworkable and the purpose and object of the MoS to resolve all the disputes would be frustrated. As the Mittal Group has not fulfilled its obligations it appears that the Seth Group has not deposited the balance amount of EDC liability.
25.7. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per Clause 5.8 Mittal Group shall not resign from the Board of Directors of Tfipl and shall not transfer majority/controlling shareholding in Tfipl till renewal of licences. As per the case of Seth Group, Mittal Group have retired from the Directorship of Tfipl and the balance sheet since then is being signed by the proxies.
25.8. As observed hereinabove, as per the MoS dated 4-5-2015 and even as per the order passed by this Court dated 5-5-2015 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1866, all the parties to the MoS are bound to fulfil their respective obligations. As observed hereinabove, Seth Group have fulfilled their obligations, except the payment of DTCP i.e. Rs 25.27 crores as per Clause 1.2 of the MoS (except Rs 9.49 crores which is paid).
26. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the material on record, we are of the opinion that the respondent Mittal Group in Contempt Petition No. 34 of 2016 have deliberately and wilfully not fulfilled their obligations which they are required to fulfil under the MoS dated 4-5-2015 and as such they have rendered themselves liable for the action under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, before taking any further action, we propose to give further two months' time to the respondents, namely, Shri Sumit Mittal, Shri Madhur Mittal and Tfipl to fulfil their part of obligations under the MoS dated 4-5-2015, more particularly,
26.1. To pay the entire EDC liability of Tfipl with interest in relation to Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 other than the share of the EDC liability which the Seth Group has undertaken to pay as per Clause 1.2 of the MoS.
26.2. As per Clause 1.2, EDC liability of the Seth Group is to the extent of Rs 25,27,92,000, out of the total EDC liability of Tfipl in relation Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 as on 24-3-2015 together with interest accrued thereon from 24-3-2015. Therefore, the Seth Group shall make the entire payment of Rs 25,27,92,000 along with the interest accrued thereon from 24-3-2015 towards their EDC liability in respect of Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2007.
26.3. The Mittal Group is hereby further directed to renew Licence Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2007; to execute GPA by Tfipl (as per Clause 5.3), Board Resolution by Tfipl for availing benefit under EDC Relief Policy (as per Clause 1.2.1), NOC without any conditions (as per Clause 8) to the Seth Group.
26.4. Thereafter, DTCP to bifurcate the Seth Group's portion of the land in accordance with law and as per the policy and/or the rules and regulations, if any. It is also observed that it will be open to the respective parties to avail the benefit of the applicable EDC Relief Policy, which may be considered by DTCP in accordance with the applicable EDC Relief Policy, if any.
27. The aforesaid entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of lifting of lockdown in the area concerned, failing which, as observed hereinabove, this Court shall proceed to pass appropriate further order/orders under the Contempt of Courts Act for non-fulfilment of the obligations by the respondents—Shri Sumit Mittal, Shri Madhur Mittal and Tfipl. As observed hereinabove, this Court has deferred to pass further orders against the contemnors—Mittal Group and Tfipl to enable them to give them further opportunity.
28. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, we see no substance in Contempt Petition (C) No. 257 of 2016 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 889 of 2017 filed by the Mittal Group against the Seth Group. Under the circumstances, Contempt Petition (C) No. 257 of 2016 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 889 of 2017 deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. List Contempt Petition (C) No. 34 of 2016 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 5 of 2015 before this Bench immediately after three months.