Calcutta High Court
Societe Des Produits Nestle S. A. And Anr vs Swapan Kumar Ghosh on 12 March, 2025
Author: Sugato Majumdar
Bench: Sugato Majumdar
OD-16
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Contempt)
ORIGINAL SIDE
CC/104/2024
SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE S. A. AND ANR.
VS
SWAPAN KUMAR GHOSH, PARTNER ,M/S. KIT KAT
FOOD PRODUCTS AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR
Date : 12th March, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Siddhartha Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Rishav Dutt,Adv.
Ms. Ayesha Iamn, Adv.
..for the petitioners.
The Court:- The learned Counsel for the decree-holder vehemently argues
that there is deliberate flouting of the Judgment and Decree passed by this
Court.
It is submitted that since there is deliberate flouting of the decree, the
contempt of Court application is tenable by this Court.
Learned Counsel relies upon three Judges’ Bench decision of the Supreme
Court of India in Sudhir Vasudeva and Others Vs. M.George Ravishekaran
and Others [(2014) 3 SCC 373] wherein it is observed that the power given by
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is a drastic power which is to be exercised
with the greatest care and caution. It is further warned by the Court that the
Court must not travel beyond the four corners of the Order which is alleged to
have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or
decided.
2
Learned Counsel also relies upon two Judges’ Bench decision in Urban
Infrastructure Real Estate Fund Vs. Dharmesh S. Jain and Another
[(2022) 6 SCC 662] to submit that it is trite law that the jurisdiction of a Court
under the Act, would not cease, merely because the order or decree of which
contempt is alleged, is executable under law, even without having recourse to
contempt proceedings.
In this case, it is observed that contempt jurisdiction would be invoked in
every case where conduct of a contemnor is such, as would interfere with due
course of justice. Contempt is a matter which is between the Court passing the
Order of which contempt is alleged and the contemnor; questions as to
executability of such Order, is a question which concerns the parties inter se.
In this case, Judgment was passed ex parte.
The judgment debtor was not present in the Court and it is not known
whether he is, at all, aware of the passing of the decree or he has indulged
himself in willful disobedience of the Judgment, although it is submitted that
the notice of decree has been served.
There is specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure on execution of
decree of permanent injunction and the petitioner should take recourse to that.
It is not a fit case where contempt of court was made, shall be drawn up.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed with liberty to draw up the
execution proceeding.
(SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.)
D.Ghosh.
AR(CR)
