Summary
In cross-contempt proceedings over a mediated settlement incorporated into its order, the Supreme Court held that all reciprocal obligations must be implemented together. The Mittal Group and TFIPL could not avoid the balance external-development-charge liability and frustrate licence renewal and separation of the projects. Their non-compliance was held deliberate and wilful, but further contempt orders were deferred to allow compliance. Counter-petitions against the Seth Group were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the settlement and consent order required the Mittal Group and TFIPL to discharge the balance development-charge liability and related obligations.
- Whether the parties’ alleged defaults warranted contempt action and further compliance directions.
Held
- The settlement was incorporated in full into the Court’s order, with directions to honour its terms and undertakings. All parties were bound to perform their respective obligations in letter and spirit; a party could not insist on favourable terms while refusing others. (¶¶ 8.3, 9)
- Reading the reciprocal obligations conjointly, the Seth Group’s agreed share of the initial Rs 59.05 crore external-development-charge liability was Rs 25,27,92,000 with applicable interest; the balance fell on the Mittal Group and TFIPL. Treating it as solely another developer’s liability would prevent renewal and defeat the settlement’s purpose. (¶¶ 9.1, 9.2, 10)
- The Mittal Group deliberately and wilfully failed to fulfil the obligations and became liable for contempt action. Further orders were deferred for a final opportunity to perform. The Seth Group was also directed to complete its own development-charge payment with interest. (¶¶ 10, 10.1)
- The Mittal Group was directed to secure licence renewal, provide the GPA, board resolution and unconditional NOC. Thereafter DTCP was to bifurcate the Seth Group’s portion according to law; either party could seek the benefit of an applicable relief policy for consideration by DTCP. (¶ 10)
Result
Two months from lifting of lockdown in the concerned area allowed for the directed compliance, failing which further contempt orders would follow against the Mittal Group and TFIPL. Contempt Petitions 257/2016 and 889/2017 dismissed; Contempt Petition 34/2016 directed to be listed before the same Bench after three months.