Calcutta High Court
Satish Vishanji Futnani vs Arul Madhusudhan Futnani And Ors on 10 April, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
OD-2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CONTEMPT)
ORIGINAL SIDE
CC/57/2012
IA NO.GA/4/2024
GA/6/2024
GA/9/2025
SATISH VISHANJI FUTNANI
-Versus-
ARUL MADHUSUDHAN FUTNANI AND ORS.
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice DebangsuBasak
-And-
The Hon'ble Justice Md. ShabbarRashidi
For the Petitioner : Mr. RanjanBachawat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prabhakar Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Mini Agarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. TarunJyotiTewari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. VenkateshMohanraj, Adv.
Mr. Sandip Kumar De, Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Adv.
For the Respondent :Mr. Manjit Singh, Sr. Adv.
Nos.2-4 Mr. V. T. Narendran, Adv.
Mr. SoujanyoPattanayak, Adv.
HEARD ON : 07.12.2023, 09.01.2024, 13.02.2024, 05.03.2024,
12.03.2024, 18.04.2024, 13.06.2024, 27.06.2024,
16.07.2024, 23.07.2024, 30.07.2024, 20.08.2024,
22.08.2024, 29.08.2024, 19.09.2024, 19.11.2024,
17.12.2024.14.01.2025, 21.01.2025, 28.01.2025,
25.02.2025, 27.03.2025.
DELIVERED ON :10.04.2025
2
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. In this contempt rule, petitioner/informant alleges that the
respondents violated the order dated June 13, 2004 passed in
CC/113/2004 and CC/114/2004.
2. Co-ordinate Bench, by an order dated June 2, 2012 called
upon the respondents to show cause as to why criminal contempt
proceeding should not be initiated as against them. In response
thereto, the respondents filed affidavits termed as ‘representations.’
3. The representations of the respondents, in the form of
affidavits, were considered and by a judgment and order dated
August 1, 2024, we issued a criminal contempt Rule as against the
respondents. Such Rule was made returnable on August 20, 2024.
4. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was carried against the
judgment and order dated August 1, 2024 which was dismissed as
withdrawn on August 14, 2024.
5. The order dated August 14, 2024 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition directed against the
judgment and order dated August 1, 2024 is as follows:
"Mr. C. A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, upon instructions, seeks
permission to withdraw this petition leaving it open for the
3
petitioner to raise all contentions before the High Court as are
available to him under law.
Permission granted.
The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty as prayed.”
6. Subsequent thereto, a number of applications were filed by
the respondent No.1 praying for several reliefs. One of the
applications was for recusal of this Court from hearing the
contempt Rule, being IA NO. GA/5/2024.
7. Such application being IA No.GA/5/2024 was disposed of by
a judgment and order dated January 21, 2025. We declined to
accept such request of the respondent No. 1.
8. Special Leave Petition carried against the judgment and order
dated January 21, 2025 was withdrawn at the instance of the
respondent No.1.
9. Subsequent thereto, few more applications were filed by the
respondent No.1 including one which was disposed of on April 8,
2025.
10. The respondents filed affidavits in the contempt Rule
subsequent to our judgment and order dated August 1, 2024. That
apart, a number of applications were filed by the respondent No.1
from time to time.
4
11. Contempt Rule was heard and hearing thereof was concluded
on March 25, 2025.Even thereafter another application was filed by
the respondent No. 1.
12. On April 8, 2025 while disposing of the last of the
applications by the respondent No.1, we directed all the
respondents to be personally present in Court today for the
purpose of the disposal of the contempt Rule.
13. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents identifies
their respective clients to be present in Court physically today.
14. The contentions of the petitioner/informant are as follows:
i.) Respondents interfered with the possession of the Joint
Receivers over diverse immovable properties and executed a
sale deed dated January 27, 2012 in violation of the
subsisting orders.
ii.) Respondents, despite several orders, continued to repeatedly
interfere with the possession of the Joint Receivers and sold
immovable properties.
iii.) From time to time contempt Rules were issued as against the
respondents. The respondent No.1 was found guilty of
contempt in CC/113/2004 by an order dated April 29, 2005.
iv.) Joint Receivers were appointed by an order dated January 19,
2004 passed in Suit No.781 of 1983. Decree passed in such
5suit was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. No
order of stay was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Further orders of injunction were passed with regard to the
immovable properties concerned on June 10, 2004 in
CC/113/2004 and CC/114/2004. Order dated June 17,
2004 was passed in CC/113/2004 and CC/114/2004.
Despite such orders, the respondents continued to violate
such orders of the Court.
v.) Joint Receivers took possession of the immovable properties
concerned and the same would, inter alia, appear from the
report of the Joint Receivers filed in Court.
vi.) Orders were passed from time to time to protect the
possession of the Joint Receivers, such as, orders dated
February 8, 2005, May 11, 2005 and July 6, 2005.
vii.) All the respondents were aware of the orders passed from
time to time in CC/113/2004 and CC/114/2004. Despite
such knowledge, the respondents did not refrain themselves
from the act of contempt.
viii.) Receivers being appointed by the High Court, the properties
in question iscustodialegisand, therefore, interference with
the possession of the Receivers is contemptuous. In support
6of such contention reliance is placed on (2000) 8 SCC 512
(Bank of India vs. Vijay Transport & Ors.)
ix.) Sale claimed to be effected is under-valued.
x.) The respondents are guilty of contempt of Court as defined
under Section 2(a) and (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
xi.) Supreme Court recognized the power of the Court to initiate
contempt proceedings suomotu in absence of leave being given
by the learned Advocate-General. In support of such
contention reliance is placed on (1988)3 SCC 167 (P.N. Duda
vs. P. Shiv Shankar &Ors.).
xii.) Respondents as contemnors cannot enjoy the usufruct of the
act of contempt. Reliance is placed in this regard on (1996) 4
SCC 622 (Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper
Construction Co.(P). Ltd. &Anr.).
xiii.) Respondents are guilty of repeated violations of the orders of
the High Court, disturbing the possession of the Receivers
and interfering with the administration of justice.
xiv.) Respondents adopted dilatory tactics to stall the hearing of
CC/57/2012 by filing repeated applications.
xv.) Respondents attempted to interfere and pressurise the
Hon’ble Judges, inter alia, by filing application for recusal
7making unfounded allegation of bias. These, by themselves,
are aggravating instance of acts of contempt.
xvi.) Conditional undertaking offered by the respondent No.1 on
July 12, 2004, March 18, 2025 and March 22, 2025 are of no
consequence.
xvii.) Apology offered in the undertaking dated March 18, 2025 is
not genuine made belatedly and is premised on certain
contentions which should not be accepted.
xviii.) The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are guilty of aiding and abating
the respondent No.1 in the acts of contempt.
15. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner/informant that the
defence sought to be raised by the respondents should not be
accepted since:
i.) Learned Judge who passed the initial order, cannot be said to
be acting without jurisdiction. In any event, if an order is
passed without jurisdiction until the same is set aside, the
same remains valid between the parties. In support of such
contention, reliance is placed on (1997) 3 SCC 443
(Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla&Anr. vs. Hind Rubber
Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.),(2016)9 SCC 44 (Anita
International vs. Tungabadra Sugar Works
8MazdoorSangh&Ors.) and(2017)1 SCC 622 (Robust Hotels
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. EIH Ltd. & Ors.).
ii.) No appeal was preferred against the initial order dated June
17, 2004 and, therefore, it cannot be said that such order was
passed without jurisdiction.
iii.) In any event, objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the
learned Judge to pass order dated June 17, 2004 cannot be
question as the learned Judge possessed requisite
determination to take up such matters for contempt of the
order dated April 8, 1993 passed by a learned Judge who
retired. In this regard reliance is placed in the cause list of
such date.
iv.) No interim order stood lapsed and in any event, Receivers are
in possession. Interference with the possession of the
Receiver are acts of contempt and in support of such
contention reliance is placed on 1994 (2) CLJ 278 (Howrah
Trading Co. Vs. Smt. PramilaJalan&Ors.)andAIR 1962 SC
21 (SethHiralalPatni vs. SethLoonkaranSethi&Ors.)as
well as 1963 SCC Online Cal 116 (Siemens Engineering &
Manufacturing Co. of India vs. S. P.Majoo&Ors..).
v.) The property in question falls within the scope and ambit of
the suit and contention to the contrary are without any basis.
9
vi.) The scheduled property cannot be treated as an individual
property of the respondent No.1 since the property was a joint
property of FutnaniPoultry Farms wherein the mother of the
respondent No.1 was one of the partners.
16. We took the assistance of the learned Advocate-General in the
present contempt Rule.
17. It is submitted by the learned Advocate-General that, the
Joint Receivers were dispossessed as will appear from the materials
placed on record. It is contended that the disobedience coupled
with defiance including dispossessing the Joint Receivers
tantamounts to interference with the custody of the Court, and it
sounds in contempt and is governed under the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
18. Relying on Sections 11, 12, 13 and 20 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, it is submitted by the learned Advocate-General
that, the Court possessed requisite jurisdiction to pass necessary
orders in the contempt petition. It is submitted that the Majesty of
the Court should be upheld. The conduct of none of the
respondents should be accepted.
19. It is contended by learned Advocate General that, the
apologies offered by the respondents should not be accepted as
they are ill conceived. Reliance is also placed on 1963 SCC Online
10
116 (Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. India Ltd. Vs.
S.P.Majoo&Ors.),(1994) 1 Calcutta High Court Notes 291 (In re:
Mukunda Chandra Halder) and (2000) 8 SCC 512 (Bank of
India Vs. Vijay Transport & Ors.).
20. On behalf of the respondent No. 1, a list of dates is referred
to. It is contended that, the subject property, was self-acquired and
that inclusion thereof in the Terms of Settlement was fraudulent.
Moreover, the subject properties were never part of original suit
schedule making the contempt untenable. Clause 32 of the Terms
of Settlement bars any contempt proceedings concerning any prior
transaction relating to the property. The petitioner/informant
acquiesced in the acts, complained of. Contempt petition was filed
with mala fide intention to harass the respondent No. 1 and
manipulate judicial proceedings.
21. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that, the
respondent No. 1 purged himself from the acts of contempt
complained of. Respondent No. 1, complied with the undertaking
and handed over possession to the Joint Receivers. Respondent
No. 1 filed individual affidavit on March 20, 2025 undertaking to
cancel the subject sale deed. Respondent No. 1 jointly with the
other respondents submitted a letter to the Sub Registrar seeking
return and withdrawal of the document as the document was
11
pending registration, from the registration office. Such document
was returned by the concerned Sub Registrar. Respondent No. 1
filed a further affidavit affirmed on March 22, 2025, which
establishes that the Act of Contempt stands fully purged.
22. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the
contempt proceedings cannot be sustained after voluntary
compliance and purging of the acts of contempt. Reliance in
support of the contention of the respondent No. 1 is placed on
(2000) 4 SCC 400 (R.N.Dey&Ors. Vs.
BhagyabatiPramanik&Ors.),(2002) 1 SCC 766 (Suresh
Chandra PoddarVs. Dhani Ram &Ors.).
23. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that once
contemnor purges himself from the acts of contempt, proceedings
should not continue. Concept of interference orCustodiaLegis
ceases to operate post surrender. Registration of the document as
a pending document undermines the contempt allegations.
Reliance in this regard is placed on (2006) 1 Law Weekly 629
(M/s. JamalsVs. P. Syamaia).
24. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that, the
contempt petition was filed unilaterally by one of the Joint
Receivers and the same is in violation of the Terms of Settlement.
Petitioner/informant is guilty of deliberate suppression of
12
jurisdictional facts. Reliance is placed on (2012) 4 SCC 307
(Kanwar Singh Saini V. High Court of Delhi) for the proposition
that interim order merges with the final order. Reliance is also
placed on (2004) 8 SCC 706 (Balvant N. ViswamitraVs. Yadav
Sadashiv Mule),(2003) 6 SCC 230 (Dwarka Prasad Agarwal Vs.
B.D. Agarwal),(1955) 1 SCR 117 (Kiran Singh Vs.
ChamanPaswan),(2001) 3 SCC 739 (Mrityunjoy Das &Anr. Vs.
Syed HasiburRahaman&Ors.).
25. It is contended that jurisdictional defect was subsequently
acknowledged by the learned Judge as will appear from orders
dated June 8, 2005 and September 19, 2007. Reliance in this
regard is placed on (2013) 10 SCC 136 (JagmittarSainBhagatVs.
Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors.),(2022) 1 SCC 101
(Dr. U.N. Bora Ex. Ch. Vs. Assam Roller Flourm).
26. Absence of mandatory sanction from the Advocate General
rendering the contempt petition as not maintainable is also taken.
Legal mandate under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 is referred to. Reliance is also placed on (2005) 1 SCC 254
(Bal Thackrey Vs. Harish Pimpalkhute&Ors.).
27. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the
contempt must be apparent on the face of the record as there is no
scope for interpretation or roving enquiry. Reliance is also placed
13
on (2014) 14 446 (T.C.GuptaVs.Bimal Kumar Dutta & Ors.),
(2011) 13 SCC 393 (AnupBhushan Vohra Vs. Registrar
General, High Court of Judicature of Calcutta),(2008) 14 SCC
392 (SushilaRajeHolkarVs.AnilKak),(2008) 16 SCC 592 (Three
Cheers Entertainment Private Limited & Ors. Vs. CESC Ltd.).
28. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the
petitioner/informant is guilty of forum shopping and abuse of
process. Contempt petition filed is pending the Supreme Court
Proceedings. The property was unilaterally included in the Terms
of Settlement. There are jurisdictional and procedural defects in the
initiation of the proceedings. Reliance in this regard is also placed
in (2012) 4 SCC 307 (Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of
Delhi).
29. It is contended that the learned Judge passing an order in CC
No. 113 and 114 of 2004 did not possess requisite jurisdiction. It is
also contended that, the petitioner/informant deliberately reframed
the contempt as criminal contempt to circumvent prior judicial
orders. Reliance in this regard is also placed on (2021) 6 SCC 258
(P. Mohanraj&Ors. Vs.Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.), (2024) 3
SCC 1 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Association of
Retired Supreme Court & High Court Judges at Allahabad &
Ors.).
14
30. It is contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that, the
order dated June 17, 2004 is being misused. The
petitioner/informant is guilty of selective invocation of contempt
proceedings. On the point of lack of jurisdiction reliance is placed
on (2008) 16 SCC 592 (Three Cheers Entertainment Private
Limited Vs. CESC Limited).
31. The Notes of argument submitted on behalf of the respondent
No. 1 contains materials which are repetitive in nature and does
not address the main issues involved. We therefore, do not refer to
the entirety of the Notes on argument as submitted on behalf of the
respondent No. 1 since it is voluminous and will unnecessarily
consume valuable time of the Court which may be profitably
utilized in disposal of other pending matters.
32. On behalf the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4, it is contended that,
the Court should show magnanimity in accepting the apology
tendered and that the contempt proceedings should be dropped.
33. The violation of an order dated June 17, 2004 by which Joint
Receivers were appointed over the subject property is the subject
matter of the present Rule. As on date, our attention is not drawn
to any order which upsets the order of appointment of Joint
Receivers as done on June 17, 2004. Joint Receivers were
appointed by the High Court over immoveable properties, on June
15
17, 2004. The Joint Receivers took possession of such property as
will appear from the report dated June 20, 2004 submitted by the
Joint Receivers. Possession was taken on June 20, 2004.
34. There are documents to establish that, the respondents
interfered with the possession of the Joint Receivers. A deed
purporting to transfer title of the immovable property was
presented for registration with the Registration Authority.
Apparently the registration did not go through. Actual physical
possession of the Joint Receivers were interfered with by all the
respondents. Possession of the Joint Receivers were restored by the
respondents to the Joint Receivers pursuant to the order dated
August 20, 2024 passed by this Court. Possession by the Joint
Receivers were retaken on August 21, 2024.
35. Thereafter the Joint Receivers were not in possession for the
period subsequent to January 27, 2012 when the sale deed was
executed till August 21, 2024 when the respondents restored
possession of the Joint Receivers pursuant to the order dated
August 20, 2024. The respondents thereafter interfered with the
possession of the Joint Receivers.
36. All the respondents knew of the order dated June 17, 2004.
Respondent No. 1 was a party to four other contempt petitions
being CC 113 of 2004, CC 14 of 2005, CC 23 of 2006 and CC 198
16
of 2006. Respondent No. 1 was represented by an advocate as will
appear by the order dated March 20, 2006 and December 22, 2006
passed in such contempt petitions. Respondent No. 1 also admitted
and acknowledged knowledge of the orders in affidavits filed by
him. He filed an affidavit-in-opposition in CC 14 of 2005 where he
admitted that the Joint Receivers took possession. Respondent No.
2 to 4 were parties in two contempt petitions being CC 23 of 2006
and CC 198 of 2006. They were also represented on by their
advocates when order dated March 20, 2006 was passed. Despite
such order, they purported to purchase the property on January
27, 2012.
37. It is trite law that once a Receiver is appointed by the Court
unless such Court discharges the Receiver, the property continues
to remain in the custody of the Court through the Receiver
appointed. In this regard reference may be made to Bank of India
(supra).
38. From such conduct of the respondents it can be safely held
that, the respondents knew of the possession of the Joint Receivers
order dated June 17, 2004 appointing the Joint Receivers and the
orders passed subsequently as noted here. Despite the same, they
acted willfully and in contemptuous violation of the order dated 17,
2004 in not only disturbing the possession of the Joint Receivers
17
but also purporting to enter into a sale deed dated January 27,
2012. They purported to present such deed of sale dated January
27, 2012 for registration. The sale deed is yet to be returned to
Court or appropriately dealt with so as to inspire confidence that
the deed would not be acted upon.
39. The contention of the respondent No. 1 that, the property was
not a subject matter of the suit or was fraudulently included or
that the Court did not possess requisite jurisdiction to pass such
orders, cannot accepted. Order dated June 17, 2004 continues to
subsist till date. All the respondents were aware of the existence of
such order dated June 17, 2004. They took no steps to challenge
the order dated June 17, 2004 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
or otherwise. The order dated June 17, 2004 was not set aside by
any Court.
40. Order dated June 17, 2004 was passed in a suit which is
pending before this Hon’ble Court. We are not in a position to
return a finding that this Hon’ble Court lacks inherent jurisdiction
in passing the order dated June 17, 2004. Therefore, we are not in
a position to arrive at finding that the order dated June 17, 2004
suffers from inherent nullity, void ab initio and, therefore, is
unenforceable.
18
41. The contention that, the property involved is self-acquired
and that inclusion thereof in the Terms of Settlement was
fraudulent cannot be decided in this proceeding. So also the
contention that the immoveable property was not included in the
original suit schedule or that Clause 32 of the Terms of Settlement
bars any contempt proceedings, on the parity of the same
reasoning.
42. Suit is pending before this Court. In the suit the order dated
June 17, 2004 was passed and subsists till date appointing the
Joint Receivers.
43. The claim that the respondents purged themselves of the act
of contempt complained of is also hollow. Affidavits filed on their
behalf subsequent to the issuance of the contempt Rule cannot be
construed to be an unconditional apology for the violation. Even
during course of submissions, it was not accepted by the
respondents that there were any violations. The original deed was
not produced before the Court even today. Therefore, the claim that
the respondents purged themselves from the act of contempt
voluntarily cannot be accepted.
44. Petitioner/informant filed the present contempt petition,
where a Co-ordinate Bench by an order dated July 2, 2012 decided
to invoke the contempt jurisdiction suomotu. By such order, the
19
respondents were given an opportunity to show cause as to why
criminal contempt proceeding should not be drawn up against
them. Such response of the respondents were considered and the
Court decided to issue contempt rule by the judgment and order
dated August 1, 2024. Special Leave Petition directed against the
order dated August 1, 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn on August
14, 2024. The acts of contempt as noted above are egregious and if
allowed to remain unattended will lower the dignity and majesty of
the Court and will send a wrong signal to the members of the
society.
45. It is for petitions/informant to bring to the notice of the Court
any act of contempt. The respondents are guilty of act of contempt
complained of. Therefore, the contention that the Joint Receivers
did not apply, is immaterial.
46. Howrah Trading Company (supra) and Seth HiralalPatni
(supra) are of the view that the Receiver continued to remain in
possession till such time an order for its discharge is passed.
There is no order discharging the Joint Receivers.
47. Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Company of
India Limited (supra) is of the view, that interference with or
obstruction to a Receiver appointed by the Court is an Act of
Contempt.
20
48. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the
respondents violated not only the order dated June 17, 2004 by
interfering with their possession but also orders of injunction. In
fact, a learned Single Judge held the respondent No.1 guilty of
contempt by an order dated April 29, 2005 passed in CC 113 of
2004. Appeal against the order dated April 29, 2005 was
withdrawn by the respondent No.1.
49. There is a finding that, the respondent No.1 violated the
orders of Court by a learned Single Judge in CC 113 of 2004 on
April 29, 2005. Even today, we find that all the respondents
violated the joint possession of the Receivers and violated
subsisting orders of injunction restraining them either from
interfering or creating third party rights in respect of immovable
properties concerned.
50. We, therefore, hold that each of the respondents of guilty of
Act of Contempt and is liable to be proceeded against under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of
India.
51. After finding the respondents guilty of contempt, we invited
the learned counsel for the respective parties to address us on the
quantum of sentences to be imposed.
21
52. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent No.1
submits that, his client purged himself of the act of contempt and,
therefore, the same should be taken into consideration and that,
only a fine be imposed.
53. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2,
3 and 4 submits that, his clients purged themselves from the act of
contempt. He draws attention of the court to section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act as also section 389 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. He submits that, since the maximum sentence a
court can impose under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is six
months, and since such order is appealable under section 19 of the
Act of 1971 reading such provisions with section 389 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the court should suspend the
sentence imposed to allow his client to file an appeal. In support of
such contention, he relies upon (1995) 4 SCC 251 (Hari Nath
Sharma vs. Jaipur Development Authority)as also (1995) 4 SCC
252 (Hari Nath Sharma (RAS) vs. Jaipur Development
Authority).
54. Learned senior advocate appearing for the
petitioner/informant submits that, the respondents did not purge
themselves of the act of contempt fully till date. The original title
deed is yet to be produced in court. He submits that, the
22
respondents are guilty of repeated violations of the orders passed
by the court. He submits that, the maximum sentences permitted
by law should be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
55. We found each of the respondents to be guilty of acts of
contempt complained of in the petition for contempt. That apart,
the respondent No.1 was also found guilty of act of contempt by a
learned single Bench on April 29, 2005.
56. The order dated April 29, 2005 finding the respondent No.1
as guilty of contempt of court, did not impose any sentence on the
respondent No.1. After finding the respondent No.1 guilty of act of
contempt, the learned single Bench directed the contemnor to
report compliance failing which, the court would proceed to pass
appropriate orders in respect of the contempt. Matter was directed
to be listed on a subsequent date.
57. Court is informed that such contempt petition did not appear
in the list subsequently.
58. We find from the records that, despite the direction dated
April 29, 2005 passed by the learned single Bench, the respondents
did not act in terms of such order. Respondents did not file any
compliance report in CC no.113 of 2004 in terms of the order dated
April 29, 2005 passed by the learned single Bench.
23
59. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 permits us to impose a
sentence of six months and a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
60. Considering the nature of the acts of contempt that the
respondents are guilty of the repetitive in nature of their violation
as also aggravating circumstances that the respondents indulged in
subsequent to CC no.57 of 2012 being filed, we deem it appropriate
to sentence the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 to suffer civil
imprisonment for ten days. Respondent No.2 is a legal entity
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 of which, the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the persons in control. We also impose
the maximum amount of fine of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by each of
the respondents within a fortnight from date. In default, the
respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 will undergo further imprisonment of
two days.
61. We need to consider Hari Nath Sharma-1 (supra) and Hari
Nath Sharma-2 (supra)cited on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and
4.
62. In Hari Nath Sharma-1, (supra)Supreme Court passed an
interim order of stay of the order of conviction and sentence passed
in contempt jurisdiction by the High Court.Hari Nath Sharma-2
(supra) is the final judgment and order passed in the Special Leave
Petition directed against the order imposing sentence on the
24
contemnor. In Hari Nath Sharma-2, (supra)Supreme Court found
that, two views were possible to be taken in the facts and
circumstances of that case and, therefore, held that the contemnor
did not act in wilful disobedience of the order, to be hauled up in
contempt.
63. Such situation does not operate in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. There is a conclusive finding
against the respondent No.1 being guilty of contempt by the High
Court. Appeal carried by the respondent No.1 against such order
was withdrawn by the respondent No.1. So we are not in a position
to return a finding that two plausible views are permissible so far
as the conduct of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 was
found guilty of contempt in respect of order passed in the same
suit.
64. So far as the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, they are
aware of the orders passed by the court from time to time. Their
acknowledgement and understanding of the orders appears from
the affidavits filed by them in the contempt proceeding from time to
time. Number of contempt petitions were initiated as against the
respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 also. At no stage and at no point of time
till the date when they made over possession to the joint Receivers
pursuant to the order of this court, did any of them make any effort
25
to purge themselves of the act of contempt. As on date also, when
we inquired from the respondents as to where the original deed
which was presented for registration is lying, it is the submission
on behalf of the respondents that, the deed is still lying with the
registration office in order to obtain the refund of the stamp duty.
65. Whatever may be the reason for which, the deed is kept
pending before the registration office, the fact remains that, as on
date, it cannot be said that each of the respondents purged
themselves of the act of contempt by making and delivering over
the deed in court.
66. In such circumstances, we do not find that the scenario in
Hari Nath Sharma-1 (supra)and Hari Nath Sharma-2
(supra)applies to the factual matrix of the present case for us to
allow to suspend the sentence that we impose today.
67. We also noted the provisions of section 389 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973. We find that, sub-section (1) of section 389
gives the appeal court discretion to suspend the sentence for
reasons to be recorded. Sub-section (3) of section 389 also permits
the court which convicts the accused, to release such accused on
bail, unless there are special reasons for refusing the bail.
68. In the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted
above, we do not find any reason to suspend the sentence imposed
26
by us against any of the respondents. Each of them acted in wilful,
contemptuous violation of the order of the Court, interfered with
the possession of the Joint Receivers and did not express any
remorse for their actions. So called apology affidavits were never
unconditional. They claimed that they would act in a particular
manner only if certain conditions were met. Even today they are
not with original deed.
69. Sheriff will, therefore, take appropriate steps for execution
and implementation of this order. Petitioner will deposit the
subsistence allowance with the Sheriff of Calcutta forthwith.
70. Deputy Sheriff is permitted to communicate the gist of this
order to the appropriate authority for compliance.
71. Joint Receives will take custody of the deed which is presently
lying with the registration office forthwith. Registration office will
make over the deed to the joint Receivers. In any event, the deed is
declared to be null and void and cancelled.
72. There are two pending applications according to us, although,
the respondent No.1 claims that there are three. Respondent No.1
withdrew all pending applications excepting IA GA No.4/2024, IA
GA No.6/2024 and IA GA No.10/2025 by order dated March 20,
2025. Thereafter, on March 25, 2025, respondent No.1 claimed
27
that, he intended to withdraw IA GA No.9/2025 and press IA GA
No.10/2025.
73. IA GA No.10/2025 was dismissed on January 21, 2025. IA
GA No.9/2025 was dismissed by an order dated March 25, 2025.
IA GA No.4/2024 is an application seeking calling for records
relating to the assignment to a learned Single Judge of
CC/114/2004. We are concerned in this contempt petition with
the violation of an order dated June 17, 2004. We find no
substance in such application.
74. IA GA No.6/2024 is an application seeking relief of perjury
against the petitioner/informant. We do not find anything on
record to suggest that, the petitioner/informant is guilty of
committing any perjury of Court. IA GA No.6/2024 is, therefore,
dismissed.
75. Prayer for stay of operation of this order made on behalf of the
respondent No.1 is considered and refused.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
76. I agree.
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
A/s./GH/Pkd.
[ad_1]
Source link