# Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 310
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-25
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 459 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Rajeev Bharti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tulsiani-constructions-developers-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52783
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C., Rohit Jaiswal

Issue for consideration
 Whether the present appeal is maintainable or
not?
11 All. Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
311
Headnotes
A. Contempt Law - Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971: Section 19; Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952: Chapter VIII Rule 5 -
An appeal in Section 19 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable
against an order or decision of the High
Court passed in exercise of his jurisdiction
to punish for contempt, i.e., an order
imposing punishment for contempt. (Para
8)

If the High Court, for whatsoever reason,
decides an issue or makes any direction,
relating to the merits of the dispute
between the parties, in a contempt
proceedings, the aggrieved person is not
without remedy. Such an order is open to
challenge in an intra-court relating the
merits of the disputes between the
parties. (Para 9)

The order impugned does not say
anything on merits except to say that the
recovery certificate has not been fully
executed. The Contempt Court has only
opined that the recovery has not been
made as yet, which was obligatory for the
District Magistrate, Lucknow to do and a
supplementary affidavit has been filed by
the
respondent
in
the
said
contempt
proceedings stating that the money is being
transferred
by
the
appellant
herein
elsewhere and in this eventuality the
District Magistrate concerned has been
directed to file a compliance affidavit and in
case the compliance affidavit is not filed,
the District Magistrate (respondent No. 2 in
contempt proceedings), has been directed
to appear in person for framing of charge.
This is neither an order against which
an appeal would lie u/s 19 of the Act,
1971, if it was referred by the District
Magistrate, Lucknow, nor an order for an
appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Rules,

## Text

310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the possession of the disputed property was
handed to the defendant, which is contrary
to the plaint allegation that she is still in
possession of the disputed property. It is
apparent that the plea taken by the plaintiff
regarding her possession in the disputed
property, is contrary to the recitals of the
sale deed, and is barred under section 92 of
the Evidence Act. It is also apparent from
the above law laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Dahiben(supra) that since the
sale has been completed and the title of the
property has been transferred in favour of
the transferee, in such a situation, even if,
full sale consideration has not been paid by
the transferee to the transferor, even then,
the sale deed cannot be cancelled by the
court. In such a situation, the transferor can
file a suit for recovery of the balance sale
consideration. It is also apparent from the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (supra)
that when the main relief of cancellation of
sale deed of the disputed property is not
granted to the plaintiff, then even the
consequential
relief
of
permanent
injunction cannot be granted to him against
the true owner of the disputed property,
who has acquired its ownership on the basis
of the above sale deed.

20. It is apparent that the plaintiff is no
more the owner of the disputed property,
since its ownership has already vested in
defendant no.1 through sale deed dated
30.11.2022, which cannot be cancelled by
the
court
for
non-payment
of
sale
consideration by the defendant to the
plaintiff.
Since
the
main
relief
of
cancellation of sale deed cannot be granted
to the plaintiff, even the consequential
relief of permanent injunction also cannot
be granted to her, for protecting her alleged
possession in the disputed property, since
the above defendant is the true owner of the
disputed property.

21. For the reasons narrated aforesaid,
it is apparent that the trial court has not
committed any illegality in allowing the
application of defendant no.2 under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC and consequently, rejecting
the plaint. The impugned order is perfectly
legal which warrants no interference from
this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. This appeal has got no merit
and is liable to be dismissed at the
admission stage.

22. The instant appeal is dismissed
at the admission stage under Order 41
Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order and
decree dated 28.08.2025 of the trial court is
affirmed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 310
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 459 of 2025

Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Pvt.
Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, Abhinav Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rohit Jaiswal

Issue for consideration
 Whether the present appeal is maintainable or
not?
11 All. Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
311
Headnotes
A. Contempt Law - Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971: Section 19; Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952: Chapter VIII Rule 5 -
An appeal in Section 19 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable
against an order or decision of the High
Court passed in exercise of his jurisdiction
to punish for contempt, i.e., an order
imposing punishment for contempt. (Para
8)

If the High Court, for whatsoever reason,
decides an issue or makes any direction,
relating to the merits of the dispute
between the parties, in a contempt
proceedings, the aggrieved person is not
without remedy. Such an order is open to
challenge in an intra-court relating the
merits of the disputes between the
parties. (Para 9)

The order impugned does not say
anything on merits except to say that the
recovery certificate has not been fully
executed. The Contempt Court has only
opined that the recovery has not been
made as yet, which was obligatory for the
District Magistrate, Lucknow to do and a
supplementary affidavit has been filed by
the
respondent
in
the
said
contempt
proceedings stating that the money is being
transferred
by
the
appellant
herein
elsewhere and in this eventuality the
District Magistrate concerned has been
directed to file a compliance affidavit and in
case the compliance affidavit is not filed,
the District Magistrate (respondent No. 2 in
contempt proceedings), has been directed
to appear in person for framing of charge.
This is neither an order against which
an appeal would lie u/s 19 of the Act,
1971, if it was referred by the District
Magistrate, Lucknow, nor an order for an
appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Rules,
1952. (Para 10)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Midnapore Peoples' Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Vs. Chunilal Nanda, 2006 (5) SCC 399 (Para 7)
2. Ajay Kumar Bhalla and others Vs. Prakash
Kumar Dixit, (2024) 12 SCC 159 (Para 11)

List of Acts
 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952.

List of Keywords
 contempt, appeal, maintainable.

Appearances for Parties
For Appellant: Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, Abhinav
Mishra
For Respondent: C.S.C., Rohit Jaiswal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
Hon'ble Rajeev Bharti, J.)

C.M.A. No.1 of 2025 (Application
for Condonation of Delay)

1. Heard.

2. Having gone through the affidavit
filed in support of delay condonation
application in filing the special appeal,
cause shown for the delay in filing the
special appeal is sufficient. The application
is allowed and the delay in filing the
special appeal is condoned.

Order on Appeal

3. This is an appeal under Chapter
VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952 by the appellant -Tulsiani
Constructions And Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Thru. its Authorized Signatory challenging
the order dated 09.10.2025 passed in
Contempt Application (Civil) No.2102 of
2022 filed by the respondent no.3.

4. It is not in dispute that the
appellant is not a party in the contempt
proceedings pending before the learned
Single Judge.
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. We have perused the order
impugned before us, passed by the
Contempt Judge. It reads as under:-

"Learned Standing Counsel on
the basis of instructions received from the
respondent no. 2 prays for and is granted
three weeks' time for filing compliance
affidavit and also to file reply to the
supplementary
affidavit
filed
by
the
applicant dated 04.09.2025 wherein it has
been disclosed that the Tulsiani Builders
has executed three sale-deeds very recently
and transferred the amount of sale
consideration in the account of some other
person
just
to
evade
the
recovery
proceedings.

In case, the compliance affidavit
is not filed, the respondent no. 2 shall
appear in person for the purpose of
framing of charges.

List this case in the week
commencing 10.11.2025."

6. The respondent no.2 referred therein
is the District Magistrate. In any case the
appellant not being a party in the contempt
proceeding, the said order does not proceed
against the appellant for the purposes of
punishment
in
the
said
contempt
proceedings.

7. The issue regarding appeal against
order
in
contempt
proceedings
was
considered by the Supreme Court of India
in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Chunilal Nanda,
reported in 2006 (5) SCC 399 and the law
on
the
subject
was
summarized
in
paragraph no.11 which reads as under.

"11. The position emerging from
these decisions, in regard to appeals
against orders in contempt proceedings
may be summarised thus:

I. An appeal under Section 19 is
maintainable only against an order or
decision of the High Court passed in
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt, that is, an order imposing
punishment for contempt.

II. Neither an order declining to
initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an
order initiating proceedings for contempt
nor an order dropping the proceedings for
contempt nor an order acquitting or
exonerating the contemnor, is appealable
under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special
circumstances, they may be open to
challenge under Article 136 of the
Constitution.

III. In a proceeding for contempt,
the High Court can decide whether any
contempt of court has been committed, and
if so, what should be the punishment and
matters incidental thereto. In such a
proceeding, it is not appropriate to
adjudicate or decide any issue relating to
the merits of the dispute between the
parties.

IV. Any direction issued or
decision made by the High Court on the
merits of a dispute between the parties, will
not be in the exercise of "jurisdiction to
punish for contempt" and, therefore, not
appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act.
The only exception is where such direction
or decision is incidental to or inextricably
connected with the order punishing for
contempt, in which event the appeal under
Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass
the incidental or inextricably connected
directions.

V.
If
the High
Court,
for
whatsoever reason, decides an issue or
makes any direction, relating to the merits
of the dispute between the parties, in a
contempt
proceedings,
the
aggrieved
person is not without remedy. Such an
order is open to challenge in an intra-court
11 All. Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313
appeal (if the order was of a learned Single
Judge and there is a provision for an intra-
court appeal), or by seeking special leave
to appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India (in other cases).

The first point is answered
accordingly."

8. The law as enunciated in the above
quoted extract of the judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court what comes out is that
an appeal in Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable against an
order or decision of the High Court passed
in exercise of his jurisdiction to punish for
contempt, that is, an order imposing
punishment for contempt.

9. This is not an appeal under Section
19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
instead it is an intra court appeal under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952. Maintainability of such
an intra-court appeal was also considered
by the Supreme Court of India in the above
quoted judgment and in Clause V of
paragraph 11 it was held that if the High
Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an
issue or makes any direction, relating to the
merits of the dispute between the parties, in
a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved
person is not without remedy. Such an
order is open to challenge in an intra-court
appeal, or by seeking special leave to
appeal
under
Article
136
of
the
Constitution of India in a case where
remedy of an intra-court appeal is not
provided. On a bare reading of the order
impugned herein passed in contempt
proceedings it does not disclose any
decision on an issue or any direction by the
Contempt Court relating to merits of the
disputes between the parties. In fact the
contempt proceedings have been initiated
against the District Magistrate, Lucknow
for not executed the recovery certificate
issued by U.P. Real Estate Regulatory
Authority, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to
as 'RERA') for recovery of an amount of
Rs.2,03,45,680.31/- in pursuance to the
judgment dated 05.09.2019 rendered in a
complaint case filed by respondent no.3
herein against the appellant. The said
judgment
of
the
Writ
Court
dated
08.04.2022 passed in Writ-C No.2007 of
2022 has not been challenged by the
appellant before a higher court nor any
review of it has been sought. As regards the
judgment dated 05.09.2019 passed by
RERA in the complaint case filed by the
respondent no.3, the said judgment was
passed after hearing the appellant as
mentioned therein but no appeal was
preferred till June 2025 when a belated
appeal has been filed before the RERAAppellate Authority by the appellant
wherein even the statutory deposit has not
been made by the appellant as yet, as is
evident from the order dated 12.11.2025
and the matter is pending at that stage.

10. On being asked, learned counsel
for the appellant Sri Vidhu Bhushan Kalia
submitted that an amount of Rs.75 lacs has
been deposited by the appellant towards
satisfaction of the recovery certificate dated
25.08.2021. As regards the remaining
amount he says that it is disputed but this is
not an issue which has been considered or
decided by the Contempt Court nor could it
be so decided. Had it been decided then of
course in view of Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra), special
appeal against such a direction which
would be maintainable but in this case it is
not so. Whether the judgment dated
05.09.2019 passed by RERA is correct and
whether the amount of Rs.2,03,45,680.31/-
is to be recovered or not are not issues
which have been considered by the
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Contempt Judge nor can we in this appeal
consider the same. The only forum
available for consideration of these issues
was an appeal against the judgment dated
05.09.2019 which has been filed after much
delay, but we say no more as this is an issue
to be considered by the RERA -Appellate
Authority. We are only concerned with the
maintainability of the special appeal under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952. An appeal under the
aforesaid provision against an order passed in
contempt proceedings would lie only in the
circumstances mentioned in Clause V of para
11 of the judgment in Midnapore Peoples'
Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), none of
which are present in this case. The order
impugned does not say anything on merits
except to say that the recovery certificate has
not been fully executed. The Contempt Court
has only opined that the recovery has not
been made as yet, which was obligatory for
the District Magistrate, Lucknow to do and a
supplementary affidavit has been filed by the
respondent in the said contempt proceedings
stating that the money is being transferred by
the appellant herein elsewhere and in this
eventuality the District Magistrate concerned
has been directed to file a compliance
affidavit and in case the compliance affidavit
is not filed, the District Magistrate, who is
respondent no.2 in the contempt proceedings,
has been directed to appear in person for
framing of charge. This is not even an order
against which an appeal would lie under
Section 19 of the Act 1971, if it was preferred
by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, What to
say of an appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 by the
appellant, who was not even a party in the
contempt proceedings we are of the
considered opinion that a special appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952 against the impugned
order dated 09.10.2025 passed in Contempt
Application (Civil) No.2102 of 2022 is not
maintainable.

11. We have also gone through the
decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Ajay Kumar Bhalla and
others
Vs.
Prakash
Kumar
Dixit,
reported in (2024) 12 SCC 159 relied upon
by the learned counsel for the appellant, but
the said decision also enunciates the law on
the same lines as Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra). It does not
lay down any such proposition of law
which could persuade us to entertain this
appeal in the facts as noticed hereinabove.
In the said case of Ajay Kumar Bhalla &
others (supra), the Contempt Judge had
issued directions on merits of the matter,
therefore, the appeal was held to be
maintainable, which is not the case here.

12. For all these reasons, we dismiss
this appeal as not maintainable.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 314
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Special Appeal No. 918 of 2024

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Yashank Khandelwal & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
M.C.
Chaturvedi
(A.A.G.),
Sudhanshu
Srivastava (A.C.S.C.), Ankit Gaur (S.C.),
Abhishek Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents: