Fact Check: False, Misleading and Distorted Information Circulated by the Chairman of Azad Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Regarding the Directions Given by the Hon’ble High Court — What Actually Happened in Court and the Serious Legal Consequences for Dishonest Litigants

1. It has been brought to notice that a false, misleading, and distorted message is being circulated by Mr. Deepak Warang, purportedly in the name of the Chairman and Secretary of Azad Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, and stated to have been drafted as per the instructions of their advocates. The said message relates to the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court and the consequences arising therefrom.
2. It is further informed that the advocates for East & West Developers have initiated appropriate action against the responsible persons, including Mr. Deepak Warang, for circulating misleading, false, fabricated, defamatory, and distorted information on social media.
3. Be that as it may, at the request of some Society members and other various persons having a direct stake in the matter, this fair and factual analysis is being placed on record.  
4. This analysis is supported by strong material and proof, including video recordings, inputs from legal experts and is intended to present the true and correct account of what actually transpired before the Hon’ble Court, so that members are not misled by false propaganda or one-sided and inaccurate versions of the proceedings. They are requested to verify the factual and legal position at their own.
5. Submissions Made by Adv. Nilesh Ojha, Counsel Appearing for East & West Developers and Mr. Anubhav Agarwal.
   • Nilesh Ojha, learned counsel appearing for East & West Developers and Mr. Anubhav Agarwal, pointed out before the Hon’ble Division Bench that the impugned contempt proceedings and the consequential orders passed therein are ex-facie illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the settled principles governing contempt law.
   • It was specifically submitted that the original Contempt Petition No. 38 of 2017 pertained only to the alleged violation of the order / Consent Terms dated 03.2015, and that the contempt jurisdiction could not have been expanded beyond the limited scope of the said proceedings. 
   •  Under the said terms, the Society members who handed over the premises were only entitled to receive rent, and a time limit of one week was granted to them for vacating the premises.
   • However, without vacating the premises, the Society members filed Contempt Petition No. 38 of 2017 seeking action on the ground that rent was not paid.
   • In the said contempt petition, the Hon’ble High Court, by order dated 14.02.2018, specifically observed that the petition was liable to be dismissed with costs, as the Society members had failed to hand over possession in accordance with the consent terms and decree, and yet proceeded to file a contempt petition.
   • However, by suppressing these material facts and misleading the Court, the Society members obtained additional directions in contempt jurisdiction, to the effect that if any default in payment of rent occurs, the development permissions including the Letter of Intent (LOI) of the developer would be cancelled.  This conduct clearly reflects dishonesty on the part of certain Society members.

[Additional Note by Author] — Suppression of material factual and legal facts amounts to fraud upon the Court and may constitute offences of perjury and contempt, punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. (See :- Samson Arthur v. Quinn Logistic India Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 403; Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432

• Furthermore, such additional directions are contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has repeatedly held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to grant substantive reliefs or directions beyond the original order or decree. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated this principle in a catena of decisions, including Arumugam v. V. Balakrishnan, (2019) 18 SCC 150.
• Consequently, the order passing additional orders other than the consent decree dated 11.03.2015 and all subsequent actions taken on the basis of that order are legally unsustainable and void. Therefore, the subsequent contempt petitions based upon such directions are themselves invalid, null and void and vitiated  and the actions of MCGM in terminating the LOI of the developer stand vitiated in law. Hence his all rights needs to be restored.  
• Usurpation of MCGM Jurisdiction :- The learned Single Judge directed MCGM to cancel the LOI without issuing notice, thereby bypassing the mandatory provisions of Section 51 of the MRTP Act. Such direction is without jurisdiction, as a contempt court cannot exercise statutory powers of another authority. Constitution Bench judgments have repeatedly held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to grant substantive reliefs beyond the original order, rendering such directions null and void. [Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409, and Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal, (2023) 20 SCC 158 ].
• Law on Enforcement of Consent Decree
  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 held that where a decree is based on consent terms, any alleged breach must be enforced through execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, and not through contempt jurisdiction (see paras 18, 39 and 40).
• No Benefit from One’s Own Wrong. It is a settled principle that no person can be allowed to benefit from his own illegality. Therefore, parties who have suppressed material facts or misled the Court cannot claim advantage from such wrongful conduct.

6. Court’s observations and instructions to Adv. Karl Tamboli (Counsel for Azad Nagar Co-operative Housing Society)

• The Hon’ble Division Bench observed that the submissions made by Adv. Nilesh Ojha appear prima facie lawful, and that the impugned orders appear beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction. The Bench, headed by Hon’ble Justice Suman Shyam, had itself passed a similar order three months earlier in Yogesh Prakash Kela v. High Court on its Own Motion, 2025:BHC-OS:26102.
• The Bench further indicated that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge do not stand judicial scrutiny.
• The order dated 11.03.2015 clearly records that a consent decree was passed. Therefore, a contempt petition is not maintainable, and the proper remedy is enforcement through execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, not contempt jurisdiction.
  [ Note :- In this regard, reliance was placed by Adv. Nilesh Ojha on Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the foundation of such proceedings fails, all consequential proceedings must fall. The Court held:

“39. … as the application …. itself was not maintainable all subsequent proceedings remained inconsequential. The legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus (when the foundation is removed, the structure falls) applies.”]

• The Bench clearly indicated that the contempt court cannot pass any order beyond the Consent Terms and decree dated 11.03.2015.
• Further, the order does not record that the alleged disobedience was wilful, which is an essential requirement, since only wilful disobedience is punishable under contempt law.
• The Division Bench made it clear to Adv. Karl Tamboli, counsel for the Society, that instead of the Division Bench passing a detailed order, he may take instructions from the Society members as to whether they wish to consent to setting aside the impugned orders and all consequential actions based on them, failing which the Bench would proceed to pass a detailed order.
• For this purpose, Adv. Karl Tamboli and Mr. Ravi Gandhi sought time until Thursday.

7. Opportunity Given by the Court: It appears that the Hon’ble Bench has taken a liberal approach towards the Society members by granting them an opportunity, instead of immediately recording detailed findings.
8. Possible Consequences if No Order is Passed on Consent and the Matter Proceeds on Merits.
   • If no consent is given for setting aside the impugned orders and the matter proceeds on merits, and the Society continues to oppose the factual position and the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court, the Hon’ble Division Bench may proceed to pass a detailed order in accordance with the views already indicated by the Court.
   • In such circumstances, as the record shows and as the law says, there may be serious legal consequences for the Society members, as the Court may examine the entire record, including the suppression of earlier judicial findings and the conduct of the parties in invoking contempt jurisdiction beyond the scope of the consent decree dated 11.03.2015.
   • Para 6 of the affidavit dated 26.09.2019, affirmed and verified by Mr. Ravikant Dhanawade and presently being defended by the Society, ex facie exposes their dishonesty. In the said paragraph, only a distorted version of the order dated 14.02.2018 has been presented, while deliberately suppressing the fact that the Court had specifically recorded that the contempt petition was frivolous and liable to be dismissed with costs, as the Society members had failed to comply with their obligation of handing over possession. As per law the act of Society members in dishonest suppression is an offence under Sec 192, 193, 199, 200 r/w 120(B), 34 of IPC.
   • The law is well settled that no member of a Society can escape responsibility unless he or she demonstrates that the impugned resolutions were opposed by them in the meetings and that they protested against the unlawful acts. In the absence of such protest, the other members may also become liable under Sections 107 and 120B of the IPC for abetment by illegal omission and for failure to prevent the commission of the offence. In such cases, the members may also face criminal proceedings, including custodial interrogation where required. (See: Rajendra Ramdas Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/0111/2009; Raman Lal v. State, 2001 Cri LJ 800.)
9. The Court may therefore record detailed findings on the legality of the contempt proceedings and the conduct of the litigants, which may expose the concerned persons to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, including actions relating to perjury, contempt of court, or abuse of the judicial process, if such conduct is established.
10. Such conduct may expose the Society members and Executive Committee members to criminal liability under Sections 192, 193 and 211 IPC relating to fabrication of evidence, perjury and false charges. The punishment for offences of perjury may extend up to seven years imprisonment.
11. Further, if any forged resolution or fabricated document is created and used before the Court in order to grab property, the same may attract offences under Section 467 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for life.
12. The law is well settled that no litigant, advocate, or society member can take a stand contrary to the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the Hon’ble High Courts. Any deliberate attempt to advance arguments in defiance of such binding precedents amounts to an abuse of the process of court and may attract proceedings for both civil and criminal contempt.
13. Such conduct constitutes civil contempt, as it reflects willful disregard of the settled legal principles laid down by superior courts and violates the requirement that parties must approach the court with clean hands and bona fide intentions.
14. Further, advancing frivolous, false, fabricated, or legally overruled contentions in order to obstruct lawful claims amounts to criminal contempt, as it interferes with the administration of justice and abuses the judicial process.
15. Where such conduct is committed by advocates, it also amounts to a serious breach of professional ethics, since advocates, as officers of the court, are duty-bound to assist the court in accordance with binding precedents.
16. The main Contempt Petition No. 38 of 2017 pertains to the alleged violation of the order dated 11.03.2015. However, by order dated 14.02.2018, the Court had specifically recorded that no contempt was committed by East & West Developers and its office bearers, and that the petition was liable to be dismissed with costs. Despite this, attempts appear to have been made to construct a fresh contempt case by suppressing these findings, which is impermissible in law.
17. Proceedings founded upon material suppression and concealment of the consent terms and earlier judicial findings amount to fraud upon the Court, which vitiates the entire proceedings and may expose the concerned persons to prosecution under Sections 192, 193 and 211 IPC. Further, making false or frivolous contempt allegations may itself attract liability under Section 211 IPC.
18. Duty of Advocates :- Advocates are prohibited from making submissions that are false, misleading, or contrary to binding judgments of larger benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts. If any advocate joins a conspiracy, facilitates fraud by the client, relies upon forged or fabricated documents, or advances submissions that are already overruled by binding precedents, such advocate may become liable for contempt and perjury proceedings along with the client concerned.
19. Consequences of Approaching Court Without Clean Hands :- Based on the author’s experience, in cases involving suppression of facts or misleading the Court, strict action is often taken against such litigants, including responsible office bearers such as the Chairman and Secretary of a Co-operative Housing Society.
20. Courts have consistently held that a litigant who approaches the Court without clean hands is liable to have his case rejected at any stage. The Court would fail in its duty if such conduct is tolerated. Such litigants pose a serious threat to the administration of justice, and permitting them to escape consequences only encourages wrongdoing and spreads social pollution. Such conduct is impermissible in law and persons indulging in it are liable to face strict legal consequences, including prosecution and imprisonment in appropriate cases.

  [Walmark Holdings Limited v. Fortis Healthcare Limited, 2026 DHC 515, Ashok Kumar Saraogi v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 3400 ;   ABCD Vs. Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 52; Sundar Vis. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 310, State vs Mangesh 2020 SCC On Line Bom 672 ; Naveen Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 6 SCC 191;  Sushil Ansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 482; and Dilip v. State of Gujarat, 2011 SCC OnLine Guj 7522,  Prominent Hotels v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11910; Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. ICI India Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 74 ; Sajid Khan Moyal v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 1450 ; Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432 ;   Ahmad Asrab Vakil, 1926 SCC OnLine All 45 –   H.S. Bedi v. NHAI, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 432 ; P.V.R.S. Manikumar v. Krishna Reddy, 1999 SCC OnLine Mad 107 ; Ranbir Singh v. State, 1990 SCC OnLine Del 40 ; Silloo Danjishaw Mistri, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 3180 ; Baduvan Kunhi v. K.M. Abdulla, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 23602 ; Lal Bahadur Gautam v. State of U.P., (2019) 6 SCC 441 ; Heena Nikhil Dharia v. Kokilaben K. Nayak, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9859

21. Consequences of Contempt Orders Being Set Aside :-
    • The law is well settled that if an order of the Court is found to be unsustainable and is set aside, the Court must restore the parties to their original position (status quo ante).
    • The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2189 observed as under:

“There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than that no act of the Court should harm a litigant, and if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he must be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake — Actus curiae neminem gravabit.”

• Accordingly, if the contempt orders are set aside, all consequential actions based on those orders must also fall, and the affected party must be restored to the position which existed before such orders were passed.