LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Ritu Maheshwari vs. M/s Promotional Club

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 513Decided 5 May 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 3616-3618 of 2022
Uday Umesh Lalit · S. Ravindra Bhat · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

In 2010, NOIDA (represented by its CEO, Ritu Maheshwari) launched a scheme for allotting large industrial plots. "Promotional Club," an exporter, applied for two plots under this scheme, but NOIDA discontinued the scheme in 2012 before deciding the club's application. The club went to the Allahabad High Court, which directed NOIDA to reconsider its old application. What the club did not disclose to the High Court was that, meanwhile, it had already applied under a newer 2013 scheme and been allotted a large plot in 2014, on which it had paid substantial money. When NOIDA, after the High Court's direction, decided the club's old application under the terms of the new scheme (since the old one no longer existed), the club initiated contempt proceedings against NOIDA, which the High Court partly upheld.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed NOIDA's appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment and contempt orders. It held that once a government scheme is validly discontinued, applicants have no vested right to have their applications decided under the old scheme's terms: any pending application must be considered under whatever scheme is in force when it is actually decided, unless the new scheme itself says otherwise. The Court also held that the club's suppression of the fact that it had already secured another plot under the 2013 scheme was a serious non-disclosure that, on its own, disentitled it to any equitable relief from the writ court. NOIDA's decision to reject the old claim following the applicable new-scheme terms was therefore correct, and the contempt findings against it were quashed.

Lesson Learnt

A citizen seeking a court's equitable/writ jurisdiction must disclose all material facts, including favourable developments that happen while the case is pending: concealment can defeat an otherwise strong claim; and applicants under a government scheme have no automatic right to be governed by an older, discontinued scheme's terms.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Contempt of Court

Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Mansi Brar vs. Mohit Singh

The Court found that the subject properties had already been sold before the status quo order was passed. The respondent did not disclose this in his reply and instead relied on other grounds, and the exact position emerged only after the Court directed him to file an affidavit. The Court held that the earlier order was passed on the basis of this non-disclosure, and that he had also wilfully breached his undertaking. He was held guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The text of the judgment supplied does not show a sentence or penalty.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Dr. Naresh Kumar vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

The Court found the respondents had in fact complied with the specific direction in the earlier order: the petitioner had been promoted to CMO (OG) as ordered, and had even been further promoted to CMO (SG) since then. Since the scope of contempt proceedings is confined to the exact directions given in the order allegedly violated, and the order never addressed promotion to DIG, the Court held the petitioner could not use contempt proceedings to expand relief to a promotion issue never covered by the original order, and dismissed the petition.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Bharat Singh Rawat vs. Dr. Poonam Singh Rawat

Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda), the Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against an order actually punishing someone for contempt, not against an order merely directing compliance. Since no punishment had been imposed, the impugned order was not appealable under Section 19, and the appeal was disposed of, with liberty given to the appellant to separately seek clubbing of the multiple pending cases before the single judge.

Decided 22 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Naima Khatoon vs. Utpal Chakraborty & Anr.

The Court found that two specific cheques relied upon had never actually been presented for encashment, so no contempt arose from them. However, a receipt dated 30.11.2017 for Rs. 1,00,320 remained unclear as to whether that amount was actually collected. The Court did not impose a contempt penalty but directed that if the amount had indeed been realized by the respondents in violation of the earlier orders, it must be refunded to the petitioner with 12% annual interest within eight weeks.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Niwas

The High Court declined to interfere, holding it saw no basis to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction over what were essentially procedural orders granting further time and recording the government's own officers' assurances of compliance: assurances given while the government was represented by two counsel, not under any unfair coercion. The Court clarified its order was not an opinion on the merits of the underlying contempt petition, which the Tribunal remains free to decide.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Teena Kapoor vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

The Division Bench found that although the appellant knew of the pending litigation when she bought the flat and chose not to join those proceedings, she still faced the imminent threat of demolition without having been heard. The Court therefore directed that no demolition take place until her impleadment applications are decided by the Single Judge, permitted her to also seek impleadment in the related civil suit, and recorded her undertaking not to carry out any further construction in the meantime.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case