Irked by a builder Jitendra Jain of Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd repeatedly flouting orders, the Bombay High Court has issued him a contempt notice three months in advance.
Jain allegedly duped a couple (Smita and Umesh Gandhi) by taking Rs 2.82 crore for a 4-BHK flat at Khar West and then sold it to another person. A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse on Wednesday asked him to refund the amount to the aggrieved couple by December 13, failing which a suo moto contempt notice would be issued.
Justice Patel said, “Contempt (notice) we are issuing now in anticipation that he wants to go to jail. We are leaving it to nobody. Not even to a future bench for you to get an opportunity to try this all over again with another court.” Jain, who was present in the court, assured the bench of repayment.
The court said in its order, “That notice is being ordered today (September 14) but with an effective date of December 14, 2022, conditionally, to be issued and served thereafter in the event of default. If there is compliance, the notice will stand discharged.”
The HC also asked the court receiver to take symbolic possession of the flat – 910 sq ft apartment on the fifth floor at Nirav, Gulmohar Road, Vile Parle West – along with an open terrace and one car park, which Jain gave as security.
According to their plea, Gandhis had booked the 3500 sq ft flat for Rs 2.82 crore with two parking spaces in August 2011. The proposed building was a ground-plus-14 storey structure, Rohit Niwas in Khar. They had paid 98 per cent of the consideration amount. However, Jain did not sign the agreement of sale and sold it to someone else. The Gandhis initially filed a suit before a single judge, seeking interim relief, which was rejected.
Jain’s advocate Bipin Joshi submitted a deed of transfer of the Vile Parle flat from a purchaser to Jain. On pursuing the deed, Justice Patel remarked that it was undated and unstamped. However, Jain claimed he had a valid title to the flat.
Warning Jain of contempt, the court noted in its order, “Mr Jain is no stranger to this court. Regrettably, he is also no stranger to the state government provided accommodation, namely the jail in and around the city. He has been there before and if he continues playing ducks and drakes with the court, as indeed he has done in this very matter, we will have not the slightest hesitation in suo motu initiating contempt proceedings against him.”
Stressing on the fact that Jain cannot be trusted, the HC said, “Nothing seems to affect Mr Jain and he continues in his merry way as if all these orders of courts are so much dust. They are not, and the sooner he realises this, the better.”
