Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Sri Ravi Tiwari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And

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. 2 SPLAD No. 459 of 2025

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' Co-operative 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. 3 SPLAD No. 459 of 2025 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 aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court 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." in a contempt proceedings, the parties,

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 4 SPLAD No. 459 of 2025 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 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 RERA-Appellate 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' Co-operative 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 Contempt Judge nor can we in this 5 SPLAD No. 459 of 2025 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 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 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) 6 SPLAD No. 459 of 2025 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' Co-operative 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. November 25, 2025 Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

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. 2 SPLAD No. 459 of 2025

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' Co-operative 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. 3 SPLAD No. 459 of 2025 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 aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court 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." in a contempt proceedings, the parties,

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 4 SPLAD No. 459 of 2025 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 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 RERA-Appellate 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' Co-operative 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 Contempt Judge nor can we in this 5 SPLAD No. 459 of 2025 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 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 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) 6 SPLAD No. 459 of 2025 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' Co-operative 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. November 25, 2025 Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench