Constitution of India, Article 142-Power to do complete justice be- tween parties-Sale of space in proposed building by defrauding the people and in violation of court orders Court finding that persons defrauded should be restored to the position before the fraud took place Held, in order to do complete justice, the court can make appropriate orders without being inhabited by the absence of any statutory provision-Court of Equity.

Company Law-Lifting the corporate veil-S, an auction purchaser of plot of land defrauding investors by selling space in proposed building even while defaulting in payment for land-S diverting monies to front companies of which its chairman TS, his wife and sons were directors-Held, where corporate device is a mere cloak for committing illegalities, the veil would be pierced and all members of the family would be treated as one entity; held further, the property of front company would be attached to realise monies owing to the people defrauded Constitution of India, Article 142.

Constitution of India Articles 129, 142-Contempt of court-S, an auction purchaser of plot of land duping investors by selling space in proposed building even while defaulting in payment for land-S wilfully and repeatedly disobeying court orders-S issuing advertisements and continuing to sell space even after express prohibitory orders of Supreme Court-Held, principle that contemner should not be allowed to enjoy or retain fruits of contempt would be given effect to; held further, Article 129 is a constitutional power which when used in tandem with Article 142 would override technical and procedural objections to such use.

Constitution of. India Articles 136, 142-Finality of orders In earlier proceedings Supreme Court directing Delhi Development Authority to bring to sale of plot of land after auction purchaser repeatedly failed to make balance payments Property sold and sale proceeds realised by DDA-Question of repayment of those defrauded by auction-purchaser-Auction purchaser contending that monies for repayment. should come from sale proceeds with DDA-Held, earlier orders under which sale monies vested absolutely in DDA became final and were not to be disturbed in purported exercise of power under Article 142; held further, ways, and means of doing complete justice should yet be devised.

In an auction of a plot of land in New Delhi by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1980, the highest bid was offered by the respondent S. While it deposited twenty-five percent of the sum immediately, S defaulted on the payment of the balance. S asked for and was granted by DDA seven extensions of time for making payment between January 1981 and April 1982. As S still did not pay the balance, proceedings were taken for cancelling the bid. S went to court and on May 29, 1982 obtained stay of cancellation.

On the recommendations of a committee constituted by the DDA, S was asked in 1984 to execute a revised agreement. S raised all sorts of objections and finally executed the revised agreement in 1987.

Even before S was given permission to enter upon the land and start construction, it began selling place in the proposed building to various persons and in the process collected Rs. 14 crores from purchasers. In a writ petition by S questioning DDA's move to cancel its bid, the High Court made an order on December 21, 1990 directing S to pay DDA a sum of Rs. 8.12 crores and stop all further construction with effect from January 9, 1991 till the date payment was made. S failed to deposit the amount as directed. In a Special Leave Petition filed by it, this court granted S an interim order on January 29, 1991 subject to it depositing Rs. 2.5 crores within one month and another sum of Rs. 2.5 crores before April 8, 1991. S was expressly prohibited from inducting any person in the building and from creating any rights in favour of third parties

.Even after January 29, 1991, S repeatedly invited offers from the public for purchase of space in the proposed building. In this process it collected a sum of Rs. 11 crores. After the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on January 25, 1993 by this court, DDA re-entered the plot and took possession of the property with the building free from all encumbrances. DDA also forfeited the amounts paid till then by S.S filed another suit in the Delhi High Court and obtained interim orders staying the re-auction of the plot by DDA. In a Special Leave

Petition by DDA, this court took notice of the conduct of TS and his wife SK, the directors of S, and initiated sou motu contempt proceedings against them. It found them guilty and sentenced TS to six month's simple imprisonment, SK to one month and each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000. The sentences were deferred by this court upon the contemners offering to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 11 crores to the Registrar General of this court before March 31, 1995 and also deposit in this court the entire sum of Rs. 11 crores by a bank draft before November 30, 1995.

The contemners deposited a sum of Rs. 2 crores but failed to deposit the balance. They also failed to furnish the bank guarantee. They were committed to prison and they served out their sentence.

In the re-auction of the plot M/s. BI's bid of Rs. 70 crores was accepted and the property transferred in its favour by the DDA. This court directed DDA to set apart a sum of Rs. 16 crores from the said sum to reimburse the pre- January 29, 1991 purchasers. On the receipt of the L report of the Commission appointed by it to prepare a list of persons entitled to be reimbursed, this court directed payment of the principal amount to each of the said purchasers.

The post January 29, 1991 purchasers approached this court with applications seeking directions for sale of the property of TS, his wife and children which were attached by this court by order dated February 8, 1995 in the suo motu contempt proceedings. They prayed that the proceeds be used to reimburse them along with interest and damages.

Before this court the applicants and the DDA submitted that the undergoing of sentences of imprisonment by TS and SK did not relieve them of their obligation to pay back the claimants whom they had deliberately and fraudulently induced to part with monies in violation of this court's orders. The properties attached should be sold for meeting these claims as well as the interest amounts due to the pre-January 29, 1991 purchasers. On behalf of TS and SK it was contended that the monies for reimbursing the claimants should come out of Rs. 85 crores collected by DDA so far from the initial and subsequent sale of the plot. The two sons of TS and SK submitted that their businesses were independent of their parents' and that none of the monies received by their parents from the purchasers had been diverted to the sons or to the companies of which the sons were directors. DDA informed this court that on October 1, 1993, TPP, a company, through its Chairman TS had, in relation to its property at 3, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, executed a lease agreement in favour of a company in Ireland for a period of five years at a rent of Rs. 1 lakh per month. On the same day the Irish company executed a lease deed in favour of the Embassy of Israel, New Delhi for a period of nine years at a rent of Rs. 8,78,360. One of the sons of TS was also a director of TPP. DDA submitted that this property alone was sufficient to realise the monies owing to the persons defrauded by the contemners.