Calcutta High Court
M/S. Bakyashwri Sea Food Pvt. Ltd. And … vs G. Rajesh And Ors on 2 May, 2025
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
OD-3
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Contempt)
ORIGINAL SIDE
CC-COM/10/2024
M/S. BAKYASHWRI SEA FOOD PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
VS
G. RAJESH AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Date : 2nd May, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debdutta Sen, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Suchismita Ghosh Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Sourjya Roy, Adv.
... for the appellant.
Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Chaudhury, Adv.
... for the alleged contemnor.
1. Affidavit-in-reply is filed and is taken on record.
2. Pursuant to the earlier order dated 25th April, 2025 the petitioner has
filed an affidavit disclosing the proceeding before the learned 4 th Fast
Track, Court IV, Metropolitan Magistrate at George Town in connection
with STC No. 1159 of 2023, the memorandum of criminal original
petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and the order
passed by learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in
connection with the said revisional application.
3. Mr. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that since two different sets of
2
solicitors are engaged by the petitioner, due to lack of communication,
the pendency of the application for criminal revision was mandatorily
not disclosed. However, we could not find any satisfactory explanation
for not disclosing the application for quashing petition as the petitioner
is a company and the person affirming the affidavit ought to have been
aware of the statements made in the said petition as he affirmed the
petition with full knowledge of the facts stated therein. It appears that
by reason of non-disclosure of the said proceedings and the order by
which the application for quashing of the criminal complaint was
dismissed were not brought to the notice of the coordinate Bench few
orders have passed with regard to the contemnor of the complaint
case. The coordinate Bench, however, was not unmindful of the power
of the Court to restrain a party from proceeding with a criminal
complaint has carefully worded its order dated 18 th October, 2023 in
observing that the Court does not have any power to restrain criminal
proceedings and expressing a desire only that the alleged contemnor
shall not prosecute the proceedings under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882, although not informed that on 19 th
October, 2023, an application for quashing of the criminal complaint
would be filed before the Madras High Court.
4. On 29th January, 2024 when the matter was taken up by the
coordinate Bench, the interim order dated 8 th January, 2024 was
directed to be continued till the disposal of the interlocutory
application.
3
5. On 20th March, 2024 the coordinate Bench observed as follows:-
"We reiterate that all observations made by us therein are to be taken
as tentative by the trial judge as well as by the arbitral tribunal.
Further, there is no restraint imposed by us on either to proceed with
the matter in accordance with law. All assurances recorded in Court
shall be honoured by the parties until further order."
6. The assurance is based on an understanding of the respondent alleged
contemnors that they would not proceed with the criminal complaint.
Surprisingly, the alleged contemnors have also not brought it to the
notice of the coordinate Bench that the quashing application was
dismissed on 18th December, 2023 and thereby seems to have
accepted that they shall not proceed with the proceedings initiated
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1882.
7. Although, this assurance appears to hold the ground till date, however,
we have to remind ourselves that we are considering the application for
contempt for alleged violation of the order dated 18 th October, 2023
read with the order dated 20th March, 2024.
8. In view of the fact that the quashing application was dismissed and
continuation of the said complaint proceeding before the Metropolitan
Magistrate notwithstanding the assurance that the alleged contemnor
shall not prosecute the proceedings under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act has not been stayed it cannot be contended
and held that the conduct of the alleged contemnors are
4
contumacious. They are protected by the order of the Madras High
Court as the quashing of the criminal complaint was disallowed.
9. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in the order
dated 18th October, 2023 the appellant was allowed to operate its bank
accounts without the obligation of maintaining any balance, on the
condition that the monthly withdrawal from the accounts from the
month of October, 2023 onwards shall not exceed the average monthly
withdrawal from the bank accounts over the last twelve months.
10. This order was confirmed at the time of disposal of the appeal.
11. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondents
have not furnished any accounts showing compliance of this order.
12. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has
apprehension that this order has not been complied with. The
petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance
with law with regard to such apprehension.
13. The contempt application is thus disposed of.
14. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
15. The Rule stands discharged.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.)
(BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)
mg
[ad_1]
Source link