Uncontroverted affidavits showing compliance negate wilful disobedience in contempt proceedings.

The Petitioner initiated contempt proceedings under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non-compliance with the Delhi High Court’s order dated 17 August 2012 in W.P.(C) No. 4989/2012.

The underlying order required the Association to submit relevant documents concerning apartment owners; the Competent Authority to notify deficiencies and communicate the pro rata charges payable towards conversion and misuser; and, upon compliance, to execute separate Deeds of Apartment.

The Petitioner alleged that no demands for pro rata charges had been communicated and that, despite submission of the necessary documents, the Deeds of Apartment had not been executed.

The Respondent, the Land & Development Office (“L&DO”), denied non-compliance and relied on a Short Affidavit and Compliance Affidavit/Status Report stating that requisite documents had been sought, demands for applicable charges had been raised, and the Petitioner and its members had failed to furnish documents and/or pay the demanded charges.

The Petitioner did not file a formal response controverting the subsequent affidavits and primarily relied on the Respondent’s earlier counter-affidavit.

Whether the Respondent wilfully disobeyed the directions contained in the High Court’s order dated 17 August 2012 by failing to communicate the pro rata charges and take steps towards execution of the Deeds of Apartment.

Whether the material placed by the Respondent established compliance with the Court’s directions and displaced the Petitioner’s allegation of contempt.

The Court applied Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, governing the High Court’s jurisdiction to punish contempt and the consequences of contempt, in the context of alleged non-compliance with its order.

The controlling principle was that contempt requires established wilful disobedience of a specific and enforceable judicial direction; where the alleged contemnor demonstrates compliance and the complainant fails to substantiate non-compliance, contempt proceedings cannot succeed.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that factual assertions contained in subsequent affidavits, if not specifically controverted by affidavit or documentary material, may be accepted, whereas bare oral submissions across the Bar do not ordinarily constitute sufficient rebuttal.

The Court examined the Respondent’s Short Affidavit and Compliance Affidavit/Status Report, particularly the assertion that communications had been issued to the concerned apartment owners requiring completion of formalities and payment of the applicable pro rata charges.

These assertions remained substantially uncontroverted for a considerable period, and the Petitioner produced no material showing that the communications had not been issued or received, or that the demanded charges had been paid.

The Petitioner’s reliance on the earlier counter-affidavit and oral denial did not rebut the later factual material placed on record.

Accordingly, the Court found that the Respondent had taken the requisite steps under the original order, while the Petitioner and its members had failed to undertake the consequential steps, including payment of the demanded charges.

The Respondent-Department had taken the steps required by the order dated 17 August 2012, and the failure to complete the process was attributable to the Petitioner and its members’ failure to comply with the demands, including payment of pro rata charges.

No further orders were warranted; the contempt petition was accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the Petitioner to take such steps as may be permissible in law.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.