1. That the NRI Corporate lawyer is resident of Toronto and hence being citizen of Canada is competent to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
2. That the NRI Corporate lawyer took the southern portion of house ground floor on rent from the owner in the year 2017. The premises consist of two room, kitchen, toilet, bathroom, open court yard, stair case and roof.
3. That the NRI Corporate lawyer along with his family is residing in the aforementioned house continuously since 2017 and the NRI Corporate lawyer is also paying the monthly rent regularly and honestly to the landlord. Thereafter, the private barristers for company incorporation started disturbing the peaceful possession of the present NRI Corporate lawyer as they wanted to dispossess the present NRI Corporate lawyer from the pendency premises forcibly and illegally. Therefore, the present NRI Corporate lawyer was constrained to file civil suit against the private barristers for company incorporation for permanent injunction. The copy of civil suit for permanent injunction dated 29.4.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/1.
4. That in the written statement filed by the private barristers for company incorporation it was submitted before the learned court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Toronto that the premises in question was sold by owner through G.P.A. and further the possession of the present NRI Corporate lawyer over the suit property was denied. The copy of written statement is annexed herewith as Annexure P/2.
5. That thereafter the illegal intervention and interference of the private barristers for company incorporation did not stop in the tendency property and hence NRI Corporate lawyer filed an application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 before the Hon’ble court.
6. That on 24.11.2017 the learned court of C.J.J.D., Toronto was please to direct the parties to maintain status quo regarding the property in question. Once, the jurisdiction of civil court was invoked by the NRI Corporate lawyer and the civil court was pleased to grant the order of status quo to be maintained by the parties, the contenting defendants in the civil suit were required to contest the suit before the learned court and was required to pray for relief they sought in respect to the premises in question. The copy of status quo order dated 24.11.2017 and interim order dated 17.7.2012 are annexed herewith as Annexure P/3 and P/4.
7. That inspite of honestly contesting their suit against the present NRI Corporate lawyer before the learned civil court, the defendants ventured towards illegal means for getting the property in question vacated from the present NRI Corporate lawyer. The private barristers for company incorporation made number of applications before the then D.R.O. Toronto. Despite the status quo order of the learned civil court, Toronto the D.S.P. Toronto ventured for illegally disposing the present NRI Corporate lawyer from the tendency in question by way of some illegal proceedings. In this regard D.S.P. sent summon dated 1.3.2018 to the present NRI Corporate lawyer, which is annexed herewith as Annexure P/5 along with its true translated copy. The then D.R.O. has also started proceedings of his own for making pressure on the present NRI Corporate lawyer for getting the premises vacated by the NRI Corporate lawyer, in this regard the aforesaid officer has made illegal report dated 02.02.2018 to the Deputy Commissioner, Toronto holding present NRI Corporate lawyer guilty for some civil private dispute. The DRO through his report has flouted the orders and jurisdiction of the Hon’ble civil court, whereas the proceedings of the civil case were duly brought to the knowledge of concerned DRO by the present Advocates for tax and same finds mentioned in the report of DRO. The report dated 02.02.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/6 along with its translated copy.
8. That the Advocates for tax was surprised to receive the threatening calls from aforementioned two officers, who threatened the Advocates for tax to vacate the premises in question. The Advocates for tax was many a times orally told by theses officials to vacate the rented premises or otherwise he will have to face dire consequences. The private barristers for company incorporation are in habit to make frivolous and baseless complaints to these officials who in turn held them illegally against the Advocates for tax for the reasons best known to them. The barristers for company incorporation have got no respect for the orders of the learned court and have always flouted order dated 24.11.2017 and interim order dated 28.12.2017.
9. That thereafter on receiving the summon from the D.S.P., the Advocates for tax made a representation to the D.S.P. and D.R.O. regarding the fact that the present Advocates for tax is not residing in the aforementioned premises illegally and the Advocates for tax is living there as tenant and that the learned civil court has granted status quo order vide order dated 24.11.2017 so, it will not be appropriate for other authority to intervene in the matter as the matter is subjudice before the civil court. The copy of representation/pre-contempt notice dated 24.11.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/7.
10. That after that on 13.03.2018 the learned civil court at Toronto allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and directed barristers for company incorporation to restrain from dispossessing the plaintiff/ Advocates for tax from the suit land till final disposal of the suit. The order dated 13.03.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/8. The copy of this order was duly given to the D.S.P. concerned on 24.03.2018 itself, but the D.S.P. is bent upon to harass the present Advocates for tax flouting the order of learned civil court and intervening in the subjudice matter.
11. That even after receiving the status quo order and stay order of the learned court, the D.S.P. Toronto is bent upon the harass and humiliate the present Advocates for tax and has again sent notices dated 17.03.2018 and 24.03.2018 to the Advocates for tax for coming present in the present matter. The copies of such summons are annexed herewith as Annexure P/9 and P/10.
12. That the order dated 24.11.2017, 17.7.2017, 13.03.2018 have been flouted by the actions of DSP, Toronto and then DRO, Toronto with illegal and malafide intention in order to help the defendants in the civil suit to get the possession of the rented out premises for the reasons best known to them. The Advocates for tax is helpless before the authority of these officials.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the records of the case be perused and after perusal of the same, lawful contempt proceedings be ordered to be initiated against the barristers for company incorporation and the barristers for company incorporation/contemners be punished in accordance with law.
Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be also passed.
That the deponent is filing the accompanying contempt petition. The petition has been drafted on the asking of the deponent and the deponent is well conversant with the facts of the case.
That the contents of paras of the contempt petition have been read over to the deponent which are true and correct to the knowledge of the deponent and no part of it is false and nothing has been kept concealed therein.
That no such or similar petition has earlier been filed by the deponent in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Canada.
Both the parties were summoned in the aforementioned matter. The Solicitors for commercial disputes got the statements recorded in its favour. He told in her statements that I have given my house labour colony, Toronto on rent to clerk in office of Deputy Commissioner, Toronto. Now, he is not vacating the house therefore I remain mentally disturb. He has implicated us in false case. He threaten me that I will get your son lifted and demand Rs.5 lacs for vacating the house. Our house may kindly be got vacated and we may kindly be freed from this person. If, some accident happens with me or my family then clerk in office of D.C. Toronto will be responsible.
After perusing the documents given by the Advocates for tax it was found that the owner of the house. Solicitors for commercial disputes produced GPA and agreement according to which he has purchased it resident of house in labour residence colony, Toronto. It has been corroborated by public health and electricity department bills presented by Solicitors for commercial disputes that in family partition his house has come to the share. Concerned official has stated in his reply that he does not give any income tax and he is residing in this house for 9-10 years. But, he has not given any reply to the charges. From this it seems that he excepts all the charges.
The perusal of the orders of the civil court which has been presented by the Solicitors for commercial disputes, reveals that this clerk has filed case before the learned court by concealment of fact and has tried to mislead the learned court because clerk has impleaded the owner of the house, Toronto as party before the learned court. Father of him has sold this house to another person. From the perusal of documents of the Solicitors for commercial disputes it seems that this house is taken on rent and now he has stopped paying the rent. Solicitors for commercial disputes’s house is in possession of clerk is working as clerk in this office. Due to his possession over house the bad effect comes on image of this office.
From the aforementioned facts all the allegation of the Solicitors for commercial disputes are found correct and it is appropriate to take strict disciplinary action against reader, Toronto. And it will be appropriate to give direction to S.P., Toronto to take action regarding the other allegations and for demanding Rs.5 lacs for vacating the house.
In your office Clerk is posted against whom dispute dated 21.3.2018 has been given regarding threatening and taking away house has been given, therefore you direct the Clerk to come present in the model town police station in regard to aforementioned matter on dated 3.03.2018 at 11.00 A.M., so that further investigation in the complaint can be carried. In the complaint delay has occurred because many a times it has been informed orally and on telephone.
I have received one summon dated 1.03.2018 in which I have been asked to come present before your goodself. In this regard I would vague your kind attention towards the fact that against the Solicitors for commercial disputes before you I have filed one civil suit in which status quo order has been passed by the learned court of C.J.J.D., Toronto on 24.11.2017 and status quo has been continued vide order dated 17.4.2018.
It is further clarified that I am residing in my premises as a tenant and I am paying my rent on time and the present status quo is in knowledge of the Solicitors for commercial disputes/defendant and with this representation/pre-contempt notice it is now being brought to the attention of your goodself. Due to status quo order of the learned civil court it is not now appropriate for any other authority to interfere in the present matter, it being subjudice before the Hon’ble court. If, some third party makes intervention of such kind in future than I will be constrained to avail his remedy of contempt of court. It is therefore, prayed to your goodself the proceedings in the present case be kindly dropped forthwith against me as status quo order is there on the file and matter is subjudice on civil suit filed by me regarding this matter.
I have received one summon dated 1.03.2018 in which I have been asked to come present before your goodself. In this regard I would vague your kind attention towards the fact that against the Solicitors for commercial disputes before you I have filed one civil suit in which status quo order has been passed by the learned court of C.J.J.D., Toronto on 24.11.2017 and status quo has been continued vide order dated 17.04.2018.
It is further clarified that I am residing in my premises as a tenant and I am paying my rent on time and the present status quo is in knowledge of the Solicitors for commercial disputes/defendant and with this representation/pre-contempt notice it is now being brought to the attention of your goodself. Due to status quo order of the learned civil court it is not now appropriate for any other authority to interfere in the present matter, it being subjudice before the Hon’ble court. If, some third party makes intervention of such kind in future than I will be constrained to avail his remedy of contempt of court. It is therefore, prayed to your goodself the proceedings in the present case be kindly dropped forthwith against me as status quo order is there on the file and matter is subjudice on civil suit filed by me regarding this matter.
More: NRI lawyer for company incorporation
2. That the NRI Corporate lawyer took the southern portion of house ground floor on rent from the owner in the year 2017. The premises consist of two room, kitchen, toilet, bathroom, open court yard, stair case and roof.
3. That the NRI Corporate lawyer along with his family is residing in the aforementioned house continuously since 2017 and the NRI Corporate lawyer is also paying the monthly rent regularly and honestly to the landlord. Thereafter, the private barristers for company incorporation started disturbing the peaceful possession of the present NRI Corporate lawyer as they wanted to dispossess the present NRI Corporate lawyer from the pendency premises forcibly and illegally. Therefore, the present NRI Corporate lawyer was constrained to file civil suit against the private barristers for company incorporation for permanent injunction. The copy of civil suit for permanent injunction dated 29.4.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/1.
4. That in the written statement filed by the private barristers for company incorporation it was submitted before the learned court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Toronto that the premises in question was sold by owner through G.P.A. and further the possession of the present NRI Corporate lawyer over the suit property was denied. The copy of written statement is annexed herewith as Annexure P/2.
5. That thereafter the illegal intervention and interference of the private barristers for company incorporation did not stop in the tendency property and hence NRI Corporate lawyer filed an application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 before the Hon’ble court.
6. That on 24.11.2017 the learned court of C.J.J.D., Toronto was please to direct the parties to maintain status quo regarding the property in question. Once, the jurisdiction of civil court was invoked by the NRI Corporate lawyer and the civil court was pleased to grant the order of status quo to be maintained by the parties, the contenting defendants in the civil suit were required to contest the suit before the learned court and was required to pray for relief they sought in respect to the premises in question. The copy of status quo order dated 24.11.2017 and interim order dated 17.7.2012 are annexed herewith as Annexure P/3 and P/4.
7. That inspite of honestly contesting their suit against the present NRI Corporate lawyer before the learned civil court, the defendants ventured towards illegal means for getting the property in question vacated from the present NRI Corporate lawyer. The private barristers for company incorporation made number of applications before the then D.R.O. Toronto. Despite the status quo order of the learned civil court, Toronto the D.S.P. Toronto ventured for illegally disposing the present NRI Corporate lawyer from the tendency in question by way of some illegal proceedings. In this regard D.S.P. sent summon dated 1.3.2018 to the present NRI Corporate lawyer, which is annexed herewith as Annexure P/5 along with its true translated copy. The then D.R.O. has also started proceedings of his own for making pressure on the present NRI Corporate lawyer for getting the premises vacated by the NRI Corporate lawyer, in this regard the aforesaid officer has made illegal report dated 02.02.2018 to the Deputy Commissioner, Toronto holding present NRI Corporate lawyer guilty for some civil private dispute. The DRO through his report has flouted the orders and jurisdiction of the Hon’ble civil court, whereas the proceedings of the civil case were duly brought to the knowledge of concerned DRO by the present Advocates for tax and same finds mentioned in the report of DRO. The report dated 02.02.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/6 along with its translated copy.
8. That the Advocates for tax was surprised to receive the threatening calls from aforementioned two officers, who threatened the Advocates for tax to vacate the premises in question. The Advocates for tax was many a times orally told by theses officials to vacate the rented premises or otherwise he will have to face dire consequences. The private barristers for company incorporation are in habit to make frivolous and baseless complaints to these officials who in turn held them illegally against the Advocates for tax for the reasons best known to them. The barristers for company incorporation have got no respect for the orders of the learned court and have always flouted order dated 24.11.2017 and interim order dated 28.12.2017.
9. That thereafter on receiving the summon from the D.S.P., the Advocates for tax made a representation to the D.S.P. and D.R.O. regarding the fact that the present Advocates for tax is not residing in the aforementioned premises illegally and the Advocates for tax is living there as tenant and that the learned civil court has granted status quo order vide order dated 24.11.2017 so, it will not be appropriate for other authority to intervene in the matter as the matter is subjudice before the civil court. The copy of representation/pre-contempt notice dated 24.11.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/7.
10. That after that on 13.03.2018 the learned civil court at Toronto allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and directed barristers for company incorporation to restrain from dispossessing the plaintiff/ Advocates for tax from the suit land till final disposal of the suit. The order dated 13.03.2018 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/8. The copy of this order was duly given to the D.S.P. concerned on 24.03.2018 itself, but the D.S.P. is bent upon to harass the present Advocates for tax flouting the order of learned civil court and intervening in the subjudice matter.
11. That even after receiving the status quo order and stay order of the learned court, the D.S.P. Toronto is bent upon the harass and humiliate the present Advocates for tax and has again sent notices dated 17.03.2018 and 24.03.2018 to the Advocates for tax for coming present in the present matter. The copies of such summons are annexed herewith as Annexure P/9 and P/10.
12. That the order dated 24.11.2017, 17.7.2017, 13.03.2018 have been flouted by the actions of DSP, Toronto and then DRO, Toronto with illegal and malafide intention in order to help the defendants in the civil suit to get the possession of the rented out premises for the reasons best known to them. The Advocates for tax is helpless before the authority of these officials.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the records of the case be perused and after perusal of the same, lawful contempt proceedings be ordered to be initiated against the barristers for company incorporation and the barristers for company incorporation/contemners be punished in accordance with law.
Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be also passed.
That the deponent is filing the accompanying contempt petition. The petition has been drafted on the asking of the deponent and the deponent is well conversant with the facts of the case.
That the contents of paras of the contempt petition have been read over to the deponent which are true and correct to the knowledge of the deponent and no part of it is false and nothing has been kept concealed therein.
That no such or similar petition has earlier been filed by the deponent in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Canada.
Both the parties were summoned in the aforementioned matter. The Solicitors for commercial disputes got the statements recorded in its favour. He told in her statements that I have given my house labour colony, Toronto on rent to clerk in office of Deputy Commissioner, Toronto. Now, he is not vacating the house therefore I remain mentally disturb. He has implicated us in false case. He threaten me that I will get your son lifted and demand Rs.5 lacs for vacating the house. Our house may kindly be got vacated and we may kindly be freed from this person. If, some accident happens with me or my family then clerk in office of D.C. Toronto will be responsible.
After perusing the documents given by the Advocates for tax it was found that the owner of the house. Solicitors for commercial disputes produced GPA and agreement according to which he has purchased it resident of house in labour residence colony, Toronto. It has been corroborated by public health and electricity department bills presented by Solicitors for commercial disputes that in family partition his house has come to the share. Concerned official has stated in his reply that he does not give any income tax and he is residing in this house for 9-10 years. But, he has not given any reply to the charges. From this it seems that he excepts all the charges.
The perusal of the orders of the civil court which has been presented by the Solicitors for commercial disputes, reveals that this clerk has filed case before the learned court by concealment of fact and has tried to mislead the learned court because clerk has impleaded the owner of the house, Toronto as party before the learned court. Father of him has sold this house to another person. From the perusal of documents of the Solicitors for commercial disputes it seems that this house is taken on rent and now he has stopped paying the rent. Solicitors for commercial disputes’s house is in possession of clerk is working as clerk in this office. Due to his possession over house the bad effect comes on image of this office.
From the aforementioned facts all the allegation of the Solicitors for commercial disputes are found correct and it is appropriate to take strict disciplinary action against reader, Toronto. And it will be appropriate to give direction to S.P., Toronto to take action regarding the other allegations and for demanding Rs.5 lacs for vacating the house.
In your office Clerk is posted against whom dispute dated 21.3.2018 has been given regarding threatening and taking away house has been given, therefore you direct the Clerk to come present in the model town police station in regard to aforementioned matter on dated 3.03.2018 at 11.00 A.M., so that further investigation in the complaint can be carried. In the complaint delay has occurred because many a times it has been informed orally and on telephone.
I have received one summon dated 1.03.2018 in which I have been asked to come present before your goodself. In this regard I would vague your kind attention towards the fact that against the Solicitors for commercial disputes before you I have filed one civil suit in which status quo order has been passed by the learned court of C.J.J.D., Toronto on 24.11.2017 and status quo has been continued vide order dated 17.4.2018.
It is further clarified that I am residing in my premises as a tenant and I am paying my rent on time and the present status quo is in knowledge of the Solicitors for commercial disputes/defendant and with this representation/pre-contempt notice it is now being brought to the attention of your goodself. Due to status quo order of the learned civil court it is not now appropriate for any other authority to interfere in the present matter, it being subjudice before the Hon’ble court. If, some third party makes intervention of such kind in future than I will be constrained to avail his remedy of contempt of court. It is therefore, prayed to your goodself the proceedings in the present case be kindly dropped forthwith against me as status quo order is there on the file and matter is subjudice on civil suit filed by me regarding this matter.
I have received one summon dated 1.03.2018 in which I have been asked to come present before your goodself. In this regard I would vague your kind attention towards the fact that against the Solicitors for commercial disputes before you I have filed one civil suit in which status quo order has been passed by the learned court of C.J.J.D., Toronto on 24.11.2017 and status quo has been continued vide order dated 17.04.2018.
It is further clarified that I am residing in my premises as a tenant and I am paying my rent on time and the present status quo is in knowledge of the Solicitors for commercial disputes/defendant and with this representation/pre-contempt notice it is now being brought to the attention of your goodself. Due to status quo order of the learned civil court it is not now appropriate for any other authority to interfere in the present matter, it being subjudice before the Hon’ble court. If, some third party makes intervention of such kind in future than I will be constrained to avail his remedy of contempt of court. It is therefore, prayed to your goodself the proceedings in the present case be kindly dropped forthwith against me as status quo order is there on the file and matter is subjudice on civil suit filed by me regarding this matter.
More: NRI lawyer for company incorporation