Delhi High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs M/S Obssiobn Naaz & Ors on 22 August, 2025
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~SB-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22th AUGUST, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015, CRL.M.A. 50201/2018, CRL.M.A.
14374/2025
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varun Goswami, Advocate
(Amicus Curiae)
versus
M/S OBSESSION NAAZ & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Mr. Pankaj
Balwan, Mr. Saarthak Bansal, Advs.
for Defendants No. 2 to 5, 7 to 10, 17
to 20, 23, 25 & 28
Mr. Bahar U. Barqi Advocate for R-
10, 11, 12, 13, 21 & 22.
Mr. Sagar Saxena, Mr. Abhishek
Singh, Mr. Karan Chaudhary & Mr.
Krisnandu Haldar, Advs. for R-1, 9,
24, 27
Md. Waqar, Advocate for R-26
Ms. Sushila Narang, Advocate for
R-29 & R-30
Mr. Amit Ranjan, Adv. for Samsung
Electronics & Samsung India
Mr. Soumya Chakraborty Senior
Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sen
Advocate for Kolkata Police
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 1 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The present proceedings emanates from a mentioning made by Mr.
Shravan Sahary, Advocate, who was one of the 11 Advocate Commissioners
appointed by this Court vide Order dated 23.12.2014 passed by this Court in
CS(OS) No.4024/2014. This Court was informed that the 11 Advocate
Commissioners who had gone to Kolkata to perform the task entrusted to
them by this Court by the said Order were attacked by an unruly mob which
gathered there to prevent the Advocate Commissioners from performing the
mandate of this Court.
2. Mr. Shravan Sahary, Advocate, apprised the Court that he was
severely injured around his right eye, left cheek and two of his front teeth
were broken in the incident which took place during the execution of the
commission as directed by this Court. He also made a mentioning about the
fact that the other Advocate Commissioners accompanying him were also
been beaten up and they had to flee.
3. The learned Single Judge of this Court after perusing the photographs,
was of the opinion that the attack on the 11 Advocate Commissioners, prima
facie, appeared to be pre-meditated and constituted as a brazen interference
in the administration of justice. Accordingly, notices were issued to the 16
Defendants in the suit being CS(OS) No.4024/2014. Notices were also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 2 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Enforcement), Watgunj
Police Station, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘DCP Kolkata’) calling
for an explanation with respect to the circumstances under which the
incident took place.
4. The Contemnors were also directed to file individual affidavits as to
what had transpired on 13.01.2015, when the Advocate Commissioners went
to carry out the directions of this Court. The matter was therefore placed
before the Division Bench for further proceedings in the criminal contempt.
5. Facts of the case reveal that CS(OS) No.4024/2014 was filed by
Plaintiff/Samsung Electronics Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Plaintiff’) stating that they have established themselves as global
business leaders in many business areas including electronics having more
than 285 overseas operations in 67 countries. It is stated that the Plaintiff‟s
operations in India include its telecommunication, consumer electronics and
home appliances and they manufacture products including smart phones,
GSM and CDMA mobile phones, TVs, DVD Players, Home Theatre
Systems, Digital Cameras, Personal Computers, Laptops, Ovens,
Refrigerators and Washing Machines etc.
6. It has been stated that the trademark „Samsung‟ is registered in
various countries of the world including India and the Plaintiffs have an
established name in the field of electronics. It is the case of the
Plaintiff/Samsung that on and around 05.11.2014, the representatives of the
Plaintiff came to know that several vendors in Khidderpore area of Kolkata
were selling counterfeit Samsung products including hand held phones,
mobile phones, tablets and accessories bearing their trademark Samsung.
The plaint identified five main markets which have several shops selling
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 3 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
counterfeit articles. 15 venders were identified and impleaded as Defendants
No.1 to 15.
7. This Court vide Order dated 23.12.2014 in CS (OS) 4024/2014,
restrained Defendants No.1 to 15, their servants, agents and all others acting
for and on their behalf from selling, distributing, importing, exporting,
advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any counterfeit goods including
mobile phones or accessories using the mark Samsung or the oval slanted
logo of Samsung or any other mark similar to the Plaintiff‟s trademark.
8. This Court also appointed 11 Advocate Commissioners to visit the
specific places mentioned against their names, which read as under:-
S. No. Name of the Local Commissioner Premises to be visited
1. Mr.Shravan Sahary, Advocate M/s Obsession Naaz, Fancy market,
Shop No.38 (ground floor),
25, Karl Marx Sarani, Khidderpore,
Kolkata-700023.
2. Mr.Ankur Mittal, Advocate (a) M/s Renu Benu Stores, Fancy
market, Shop No.29,
25, Karl Marx Sarani, Khidderpore,
Kolkata- 700023 and,
(b) M/s ALTS Trading, Fancy market,
Shop No.30/33,
25, Karl Marx Sarani, Khidderpore,
Kolkata – 700023
also at
35/A/H/4, Kabitirtha Sarani,
Watgunge Street, Kolkata -700023.
3. Mr.Siddharth Khatana, Advocate M/s Imaxx Mobile Zone, Fancy
market, Shop No.46 (ground floor),
25, Karl Marx Sarani, Khidderpore,
Kolkata -700023 and,
M/s Taha Telecom, Fancy market,
Shop No.45,
25, Karl Marx Sarani, Khidderpore,
Kolkata -700023.
4. Mr. Purshotam Mishra, Advocate M/s Elite Electronics, partners –
Mr.Intikhab, Fancy market, Shop
No.4 (ground floor),
2, Dent Mission Road, Khidderpore,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 4 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
Kolkata -700023 and,
M/s Big Brother, Fancy Plaza, Shop
No.5 (second floor),
2, Dent Mission Road, Khidderpore,
Kolkata – 700023.
5. Mr.Gurmehar Singh, Advocate M/s Danish‟z Telecom DB, Fancy
Plaza, Shop No.6 (ground floor),
2, Dent Mission Road, Khidderpore,
Kolkata -700023 and,
M/s Naaz Telecom, Fancy Plaza,
Shop No.8 (ground floor),
2, Dent Mission Road, Khidderpore,
Kolkata -700023.
6. Mr.Amit Chhabra, Advocate M/s Alfa Int., Green Plaza market,
Shop No.10, 10A, 14, 16, 7 and 45,
25, Karl Marx Sarani, Khidderpore,
Kolkata – 700023
Also at
M.K.Plaza, Shop No.G-7 and G-8
83, Manshatala Lane, Khidderpore,
Kolkata – 700023.
7. Ms.Nishu Singla, Advocate M/s Flashing Tech, M.K.Plaza, 83A,
Manshatala Lane (first floor), shop
No.F4, Khidderpore, Kolkata –
700023
8. Ms.Raspreet Kaur, Advocate M/s Flashing Tech, Green Plaza
Market, Second Floor, Shop No.S4,
S5 and 20-F
Karl Marx Sarani, Khidderpore,
Kolkata -700023.
9. Mr.Kunal Prakash, Advocate M/s. Super Traders, M.K.Plaza (first
floor),
83, Manshatala Lane, Shop No.F2,
Khidderpore, Kolkata -70002.
10. Ms.Medha Sachdev, Advocate M/s Amir Telecom, I-Plaza, Shop
No.15 (first floor),
82B, Manshatala Lane, Khidderpore,
Kolkata -70002.
11. Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate M/s Master Trading Corporation, I-
Plaza Market, Shop No.32 (first
floor),
82B, Manshatala Lane, Khidderpore,
Kolkata -70002
Also at
I-Plaza Market, Shop No.17 (ground
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 5 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
floor),
82B, Manshatala Lane, Khidderpore,
Kolkata -70002 and,
M/s Impress, I-Plaza Market, Shop
No.3 (ground floor),
82B, Manshatala Lane, Khidderpore,
Kolkata -70002.
9. The Advocate Commissioners were directed to visit the places
mentioned against their names and prepare inventory of the counterfeit
products being sold under the trademark „SAMSUNG‟ and the oval slanted
logo or any other mark deceptively similar, to the Plaintiff‟s trademark. The
Advocate Commissioners were directed to seize all such articles, seal them
and release them on „superdari‟ with the directions to produce them before
the Court as and when required. The Advocate Commissioners were also
entitled to seek assistance of the authorized representative of the Plaintiff
and the concerned Police authorities at the time of inspection.
10. Material on record indicates that Mr. Shravan Sahary, Advocate, one
of the Advocate Commissioners who had made mentioning before this
Court, pursuant to his appointment, had sent an e-mail to the Advocates for
the Plaintiff on 26.12.2014 informing them that the commission would be
executed in Kolkata on 13.01.2015. Thereafter, Mr. Shravan Sahary,
Advocate, and Mr Ankur Mittal, Advocate, a fellow Advocate
Commissioner, sent a formal request to the DCP, Enforcement vide letters
dated 10.01.2015 requesting Police support and assistance in carrying out
the commission. On the same date, Mr. Birendra Singh, Senior Partner and
Mr. Prabhu Tandon, Partner at M/s Kochhar & Co., who were the Advocates
for the Plaintiff, met Mr. Rabindra Nath Sarkar, DCP, Kolkata Police
informing him about the shops in Fancy Market complex selling the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 6 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
counterfeit articles. The DCP Kolkata was informed that the Advocate
Commissioners, would be reaching Kolkata on 12.01.2015, and would be
conducting the raid on the subsequent day.
11. Thereafter, a formal meeting took place with the DCP on 13.01.2015
at about 12:00 noon wherein the Advocate Commissioners and the learned
Counsel for the Plaintiff apprised the DCP and requested a support team to
carry out the commission. The DCP assigned 21 Policemen to assist the
Advocate Commissioners whereafter they headed to the shops of the
Defendants located at Khidderpore Market area in separate cabs.
12. The Advocate Commissioners reached the market by 1:20 PM and
assembled at a common meeting point where they sub-divided themselves
into 10 smaller groups comprising of the Advocate Commissioners &
Policemen to visit the premises where they were supposed to conduct raid.
13. Mr. Shravan Sahary, Advocate, was directed to carry out the
commission at M/s Obsession Naaz, Fancy Market, Shop No. 38 (ground
floor) and was assisted by a Kolkata Police Constable, namely Mr Pandey
and Mr. Sumant Narang, who was the Counsel for the Plaintiff. Upon
reaching the location they entered from the main road and made enquiries
about the location of the shop. It has been stated by the learned Advocate
Commissioner that while locating Shop No.38, he observed that there were
various packages containing phones of multiple brands. However, he could
not spot any recognizable brand like Samsung, Nokia, Apple etc. He also
states that his local informer, who knew the area well and was assisting him
to locate the exact location of the shop informed him that the news of arrival
of the commission has already reach the locals and they had removed
counterfeit phones from their shops.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 7 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
14. While moving from Shop No.41, towards Shop No.38, he entered the
building from the side entrance. As soon as he entered the said building, he
noticed that shopkeepers around him had started pulling their shutters,
switching-off their lights and closing their shops. As soon as he reached
Shop No.38, people present inside the shop pulled down the shutter and
turned off the lights. Thereafter, a huge crowd appeared and surrounded the
Advocate Commissioner and his team. It is stated that the crowd became
unruly and pulled the Constable assisting the Advocate Commissioner. The
Plaintiff‟s Counsel assisting the Advocate Commissioner was also
manhandled and the Advocate Commissioner tried to intervene.
15. Upon seeing the situation deteriorate, he along with his team reached
the building exit and tried to exit the building. However, the crowd became
aggressive and started manhandling him and assaulted them physically.
16. Mr. Sahary, Advocate, was grabbed by his neck and people around
him dragged him for about 5 ft. into a building whereafter he was brutally
assaulted and he received a blow to his nose. Because of the attack he
temporarily lost his consciousness and two of his front upper teeth
(Maxillary Central Incisors) were knocked out. After regaining
consciousness he realised that he is still being assaulted with lathis and rods
and struggled to free himself. He managed to free himself and ran out of the
building whereafter the crowd chased him. He managed to escape the area in
a taxi and reached the hotel where other Advocate Commissioners were
staying.
17. Mr Ankur Mittal, Advocate, who was appointed as a Advocate
Commissioner and was supposed to carry out the commission at M/s Renu
Benu Stores, Fancy market, Shop No.29 and, M/s ALTS Trading, Fancy
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 8 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
market, Shop No.30/33, was brutally assaulted by a mob during the
execution of the commission and received multiple injuries on his person.
18. Mr. Siddharth Khatana was also one of the 11 Advocate
Commissioners who had been appointed to visit M/s Imaxx Mobile Zone
and M/s Taha Telecom. He was assisted by a local lawyer and a Police
Personnel and was making his way to Shop No. 46, which is the location of
M/s Imaxx Mobile Zone. As soon as he entered the premises, he noticed that
shop owners and people standing nearby getting agitated. They started
confronting the raiding team.
19. Mr. Khatana, Advocate, noticed that there were about two counterfeit
mobile phones which were packaged but had no price mentioned. However,
before he could proceed any further to inspect the said phones, a mob had
gathered around him and started assaulting the Advocate Commissioner and
other members of his raiding team. The Advocate Commissioner and his
team were dragged out of the shop and were beaten whereafter the mob
snatched the counterfeit phones from his hands. The Advocate
Commissioner managed to escape from the shop. It is stated that while
escaping, he noticed that a few individuals in the mob carrying rods and
hockey sticks, had gheraoed Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, and were brutally
beating him. Mr. Khatana, somehow managed to escape and reached the
hotel.
20. Mr. Amit Chhabra, Advocate, was appointed as the Advocate
Commissioner and was supposed to carry out the commission at M/s Alfa
Int. Green Plaza Market in the same locality. He along with certain local
Advocates arranged by the Plaintiff, reached the market at Khidderpore,
Kolkata. He was assisted by Mr. Anirban, Advocate (local lawyer) and two
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 9 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
Constables from the Enforcement Department. He reached the site of
inspection and made enquiries from the shopkeepers. He made them privy to
the order of this Court appointing him as the Advocate Commissioner to
inspect their shop. However, the shopkeeper did not disclose his name to the
Advocate Commissioner.
21. Around that time, Mr. Chhabra, noticed that the neighbouring
shopkeepers had gathered around the premises and were creating commotion
and obstructing the commission. Furthermore, he noticed that the shutters of
the premises were being pulled down and his team was forcibly pulled out of
the premises. He could not ascertain as to where they had been taken and in
a state of commotion, he tried to exit the premises. He stated that the
shopkeepers and other individuals were armed with rods, hockey sticks and
dandas etc. and grabbed him by his collar and manhandled him. They
assaulted him and dragged him out by pulling his hair. Mr. Chhabra,
Advocate, managed somehow to escape their hold, whereafter he took a taxi
back to the hotel.
22. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, was appointed as the Advocate
Commissioner and was supposed to carry out the commission at M/s Master
Trading Corporation and M/s Impress. He was assisted by a local lawyer and
two Policemen and while trying to find Shop No.32, i.e., the address of M/s
Master Trading Corporation, he made enquiries from some local people with
respect to the location of the shop. While making his way to the said
address, he met Mr. Gurmehr Singh, Advocate and Mr. Purshotam Mishra,
Advocate, who were fellow Advocate Commissioners. They informed him
that a mob had gathered around the said premises and was creating
commotion and obstructing the commission.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 10 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
23. It has been stated that shopkeepers had started pulling down their
shutters and were disrupting execution of the commission by resorting to
violent means. In view of the deteriorating situation, Mr. Sharma, Advocate,
realised that it was not possible to execute the commission and he decided
not to proceed further. He managed to run away along with two local
lawyers who guided him to the hotel.
24. Ms. Nishu Singla, Advocate, was appointed as the Advocate
Commissioner and was supposed to carry out the commission at M/s
Flashing Tech and was accompanied by Ms. Pritha Mukherjee, i.e. the
authorized representative of the Plaintiff. They were assisted by five Police
officials of the Enforcement Department. After they reached the location of
M/s Flashing Tech, they proceeded to enter the shop in order to carry out the
commission. It is at this point, two persons standing inside the shop were
informed about the order of this Court appointing her as one of the Advocate
Commissioners and Ms. Singla made enquiries about the whereabouts of the
owner of the shop. She noticed four packaged cartons lying inside the shop
and asked the persons to open the cartons to check their contents. However,
they refused to do so and threatened her with dire consequences. At the
same time, she heard loud voices coming from outside and saw a mob
coming up from the stairs screaming and shouting. It is stated that few of
those individuals were carrying rods and hockey sticks. Thereafter, the
Advocate Commissioner along with her team came out of the plaza and
made her way back to the hotel.
25. Mr. Kunal Prakash, Advocate, was appointed as the Advocate
Commissioner and was supposed to carry out the commission at M/s Super
Traders. After reaching the market, he was assisted by the representative of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 11 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
the Plaintiff, namely, Abhishek Birthary and one Police Inspector. He
reached the shop whereafter he met one person who introduced himself as
Mohd. Asif @ Pintu who claimed to be the occupant of the shop. The
Advocate Commissioner made enquiries regarding the whereabouts of the
shop owner. However, instead of assisting them, the said Mohd Asif made a
telephone call whereafter a large crowd of local traders armed with baseball
sticks, cricket bats and iron rods etc. gathered around the shop, closed the
shutters and main entrance of the building and created an atmosphere of riot
and chaos. The crowd started beating the police personnel assisting him and
threatened to kill the persons who had come to raid their shops. The
situation deteriorated to a point that the execution of the commission became
impossible and as a result, the Advocate Commissioner had no other option
but to terminate the execution and escape. Thereafter, he went back to his
hotel.
26. Ms. Raspreet Kaur, Advocate, was appointed as the Advocate
Commissioner to carry out the commission at M/s Flashing Tech. After
reaching the main market, she met with Ms. Avneet Nehal, the authorized
reprentative of the Plaintiff. They were assigned five Police personnel and
were making their way to Shop No.11, i.e., M/s Flashing Tech. Upon
reaching the premises, she found that most of the shops in the area had been
shut down and the remaining shops were also in the midst of being shut
down. She made her way to the second floor to reach the designated shop.
However, she found that the passage of the premises was blocked and
unapproachable. Thereafter, she took an alternative route and tried to make
her way to the shop using a separate outer route on the left side of the
building. While making her way back to the ground floor, she heard noises
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 12 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
and people shouting „maro maro‟. Thereafter, she saw that a large mob had
gathered around the main entrance of the building and the main entrance
was closed. Some individuals in the mob were carrying rods and hockey
sticks. The Advocate Commissioner and her team were questioned by the
shopkeepers, who made enquiries about their whereabouts and why they had
come to the market. It is stated that the Advocate Commissioner was told by
the shopkeepers that the owners of the shop had prior knowledge about the
execution of the commission and they had deliberately closed their shops.
Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner and her team with the assistance of
the Police officials managed to exit the plaza.
27. While coming out of the plaza, the Advocate Commissioner saw a
crowd of about 100 people gathered on the street and holding two Police
Officials by their collars. A fellow Advocate Commissioner, Mr. Sahary,
Advocate, was bleeding profusely from his face. The mob had started
attacking the taxi and bus that had been used by the Advocate
Commissioners and their representatives. It has been stated that the situation
took a violent turn and thereafter a Police Riot Control Van had to be called
to control the crowd.
28. The unfolding of events made it impossible to execute the
commission and the Advocate Commissioner returned to her hotel. After all
the Advocate Commissioners, the local Advocates and the learned Counsel
for the Plaintiff reached the hotel, Mr. Shravan Sahary, Advocate, Mr.
Ankur Mittal, Advocate, and Mr. Anirban, Advocate, were taken to the
emergency department of Woodlands Multispeciality Hospital by Mr.
Prabhu Tandon and Sumant (authorized representatives of the Plaintiff).
29. Mr. Sahary, Advocate, underwent a neck and chest X-ray. However,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 13 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
since there was no dental doctor available at the hospital, he could not get
any assistance for his broken teeth. After collecting the reports and
medicine, the injured Advocate Commissioners returned to the hotel and due
to the shock and trauma of the injury, the Advocate Commissioners could
not go to the local Police Station and returned to Delhi on the night of the
incident, i.e., 13.01.2015.
30. Mr. P. S. Parya, Officer-in-Charge, EOW, SI D. K. Hazra, ASI R.P.
Gupta of Vigilance Section and Constable Ashis Dhar of EOW Kolkata
Police who were assisting the Advocate Commissioner were also severely
injured. The injured Police personnel were taken to Medical College
Hospital and Kolkata Police Hospital for treatment.
31. Material on record indicates that after the incident on 13.01.2015, a
GD Entry bearing No. 1006 was made by the Watgunge Police Station on
the basis of complaint of Inspector Arup Kumar Sardar, whereafter a FIR
No.13/2015 dated 13.01.2015 was registered under Section 147, 148, 149,
353, 333, 379 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
as „IPC‟) against the owner of M/s Flashing Tech, M/s Super Traders, M/s
Alfa Int., M.K.Plaza and M/s Alfa Int., Green Plaza and supporters of the
Defendants who had attacked the Advocate Commissioners and Policemen
accompanying them. Based on the investigation carried out under the FIR,
R-21 i.e., Anwar Hussain, R-22, i.e., Lalchand Khan, were arrested on
27.01.2015 and R-17, i.e., Niyaz Ahmad, R-18, i.e., Md. Asif, R-19, i.e.,
Md. Jasim, R-20, i.e., Md. Salauddin, were arrested on 04.02.2015.
32. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed 08.12.2016 wherein the
following Respondents were charge-sheeted by the Kolkata Police:-
i. R-21 i.e., Anwar Hussain,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 14 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
ii. R-22, i.e., Lalchand Khan,
iii. R-17, i.e., Niyaz Ahmad,
iv. R-18, i.e., Md. Asif,
v. R-19, i.e., Md. Jasim,
vi. R-20, i.e., Md. Salauddin,
vii. R-23 i.e., Faiyaz Khan
viii. R-24, i.e., Nishar Ali,
ix. R-25 i.e., Abul Halin,
x. R-26 i.e., Aftab Ahmed alias Vicky,
xi. R-27 i.e., Ajmatullah Khan,
xii. R-28 i.e., Asif Khan,
xiii. R-29 i.e., Nadeem Ahmed,
xiv. R-30 i.e., Shabbir Ali,
33. In the meanwhile, Mr. Sahary, Advocate, mentioned the matter in
Court, which led to the initiation of present contempt proceedings. Taking
note of the same, this Court passed an order dated 22.01.2015, taking suo
motu cognizance of the matter and placed it the matter before the Division
Bench of this Court for further proceedings. Vide the same order notices
were issued to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, through the Resident
Commissioner, West Bengal Bhawan, New Delhi and the Deputy
Commissioner of Police (Enforcement), Watgunj Police Station, Kolkata on
22.01.2015.
34. Vide the aforementioned order, Show Cause Notices (hereinafter
referred to as „SCN‟) were issued to Respondent Nos. 1 to 16 (original
defendants in CS(OS) 4024/2014), calling upon them to explain why
proceedings for criminal contempt should not be initiated against them for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 15 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
obstructing Court appointed Advocate Commissioners from doing their
work and attacking them.
35. Respondent Nos. 17 to 28 were subsequently arrested by Kolkata
Police pursuant to FIR No. 13/2015 and were impleaded as respondents in
the present contempt proceedings vide order dated 23.03.2015. Respondents
No 29 and 30 were impleaded by order dated 23.04.2024. In response to the
SCN, the contemnors have filed affidavits placing their respective
explanations on record.
36. R-1 i.e., Rajullah Khan is the proprietor of M/s Obsession Naaz, Shop
No. 38, Ground Floor, 25 Karl Marx Sarani, Fancy Market, Kolkata-700023
and father of R-27 i.e. Ajmatullah Khan. His shop was to be inspected by
Advocate Commissioner, Mr. Shravan Sahny, Advocate. In his affidavit in
reply to the SCN dated 09.02.2015, he has pleaded that the incident has
occurred at M.K. Plaza which is situated on Maheshtalla Lane, whereas his
shop is at a distance of about 300 meters and located in an entirely separate
commercial building. He has also denied any association with R-24 i.e.
Nisar Ali, and submits that the said Respondent had never worked for him or
his firm in any capacity. He has also averred that on the date of the incident
he was on a business trip to China and had been out of the country till
16.01.2015. In this regard he has furnished a copy of his passport and
passenger itinerary receipt. Furthermore, he pleads innocence and has
tendered an unconditional apology. He has reiterated the same position in
his affidavit submitted in compliance of order dated 12.02.2018.
37. R-2 i.e., Asraf Ali is the license holder of Shop No.29, being M/s
Renu Benu Store, 25 Karl Marx Sarani, Fancy Market, Kolkata-700023. His
shop was to be inspected by Advocate Commissioner Mr Ankur Mittal,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 16 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
Advocate. In his affidavit in reply to the SCN dated 09.02.2015, he has
averred that on the date of the incident when the Advocate Commissioners
reached the market, it caused general confusion among the shop keepers and
some miscreants took advantage of the situation and attacked the Advocate
Commissioners. The Respondent has also pleaded that he is not well
educated and, therefore, when the Advocate Commissioner visited his shop,
the Respondent assumed that he was some sort of “impersonator” and
requested him to wait so that he could contact his lawyer. He pleads, that
nonetheless, he complied with the directions of the Advocate Commissioner
and let him search his premises. In his subsequent affidavit tendered in
pursuance of the order dated 12.02.2018, he has denied any relation or
connection with R-17 i.e. Niyaz Ahmed and R-18 i.e. Md. Asif and states
that they were at no point in time employed at his store. He has further
averred that his shop is located about 500 meters away from the place of the
incident and states that he was not present in the market at the time of the
incident and is in no manner connected to the incident.
38. R-3 i.e., Altmas Ali, is the proprietor of M/s Alt S Trading, Shop No.
30/33, 25 Karl Marx Sarani & 35/A/H/4, Kabitirtha Sarani, Kolkata-23. His
shop was to be inspected by Advocate Commissioner Mr Ankur Mittal,
Advocate. In his affidavit tendered in reply to SCN dated 09.02.2015, he has
pleaded that the incident has occurred at a different market complex and it is
situated at a distance of about 300 meters from his shop. Further, he has
averred that the SCN has been issued to him merely because he is a
defendant in CS (OS) No. 4024 of 2014. He has pleaded that on the date of
the incident he was not in the city he was out of station because of a
business trip and was apprised about the incident at the market by one of his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 17 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
employees. He has also averred that none of the Advocate Commissioners
visited his store or met any of his employees on the date of the incident and
neither he nor his employees are in any manner connected with the violence
that took place in the market on the date of the incident. The Respondent has
also tendered an unconditional apology. In his affidavit tendered in
compliance with the order of this Court order dated 12.02.2018, he has
reiterated the earlier position.
39. R-4 i.e., Nasrul Haque, is the proprietor of M/s Imaax Mobile Zone,
Shop No. 46, Fancy Market, 25 Karl Marx Sarani, Khidderpore, Kolkata-
700023. His shop was to be inspected by Advocate Commissioner Mr.
Siddharth Khatana, Advocate. In his affidavit in reply to the SCN dated
18.02.2015, he has pleaded that the visit of the Advocate Commissioners to
the market on the date of the incident resulted in a lot of confusion which
was taken advantage of by some miscreants. He has also pleaded that these
miscreants resorted to hooliganism which eventually culminated into a riot
like situation at Fancy Market. The Respondent has also pleaded that he is
not well educated and therefore, when the Advocate Commissioner visited
his shop, the Respondent assumed that he was some sort of “impersonator”
and requested him to wait so that he could contact his lawyer. However, the
Advocate Commissioner proceeded to search the premises as per his whims
and fancies. The R-4 has submitted that on the date of the incident he was
not in town and had no role whatsoever in the incident. He has averred that
he was appraised about the occurrence of the incident telephonically. In his
subsequent affidavit tendered in compliance with the order of this Court
dated 12.02.2018, he has reiterated the earlier position.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 18 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
40. R-5 i.e., Zaheer Ahmed, is the proprietor of M/s Taha Telecom, at
Shop No. 45, Fancy Market, 25 Karl Marx Sarani. His premises were also
visited by Mr. Siddharth Khatana, Advocate. However, it has been stated by
the learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 that he has expired during the
course of these proceedings and therefore the present proceedings against
him stand abated.
41. R-6 i.e., Intikhab Alam, is the proprietor of M/s Elite Electronics,
Shop No. 4, Ground Floor, 2 Dent Mission Road, Khidderpore. His shop
was to be inspected by Advocate Commissioner Mr. Purshotam Mishra,
Advocate. In his affidavit in reply to the SCN dated 09.02.2015, he has
averred that that the place of the incident is located in a separate commercial
building which is at a distance of approximately 300 meters from the place
of the incident. He has also submitted that from 12.01.2015 to 12.02.2015 he
was in Bangkok. He has furnished a photocopy of his passport and
passenger itinerary receipt to support the same. In his affidavit tendered in
compliance with the order of this Court order dated 12.02.2018, he has
reiterated the above position and pleaded that neither he nor any person from
his firm were connected with the violence that took place in Fancy Market
against the members of the Commission.
42. R-7 i.e., Wahidur Rahman, is the proprietor of M/s Big Brother,
located at Shop No. 5, Second Floor, Fancy Plaza, 2 Dent Mission Road,
Khidderpore. His shop was to be inspected by Advocate Commissioner Mr.
Purshotam Mishra, Advocate. In his affidavit in reply to the SCN dated
09.02.2015, he has stated that the incident had taken place at the shop
known as M/s Flashing Tech Shop No. F4 M.K. Plaza. The said market
complex is a separate commercial market and located at a considerable
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 19 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
distance from his shop. He has averred that he has been arrayed as a party
merely because he is a defendant in CS (OS) 4024 of 2014. He has also
pleaded that on the date of the incident he was not at his shop and was
informed about the attack that took place on the commission after returning
to his home. In his subsequent affidavit tendered in compliance with the
order of this Court order dated 12.02.2018, he has reiterated the above
position.
43. R-8 i.e, Zeeshan Danish, is the proprietor of M/s Danish‟z Telecom
DB situated at at Shop No. 6, Ground Floor, Fancy Plaza, 2 Dent Mission
Road, Khidderpore. His shop was to be inspected by Advocate
Commissioner Mr. Gurmehar Singh, Advocate. In his affidavit tendered in
response to the SCN dated 09.02.2015, he has pleaded that the incident
occurred at M.K. Plaza which is situated at Maheshtalla lane and the said
market complex is in a separate commercial building and is located at a
considerable distance from his shop. He has also pleaded that between
20.11.2014 to 28.01.2015 he was on a business trip to China and is in no
way connected with the violence that took place against the Advocate
Commissioners on 13.01.2015 at Fancy Market. In his affidavit tendered in
compliance with the order of this Court order dated 12.02.2018, he has
reiterated the above position.
44. R-9 i.e., Nayeemullah, is the proprietor of M/s Naaz, Shop No. 8,
Ground Floor, Fancy Plaza, 2 Dent Mission Road. His shop was to be
inspected by Advocate Commissioner Mr. Gurmehar Singh, Advocate. In
his affidavit reply to the SCN dated 09.02.2015, he has pleaded that the visit
of the Advocate Commissioners to the market on the date of the incident
resulted in a lot of confusion which was taken advantage of by some
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 20 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
miscreants. He has also pleaded that these miscreants resorted to
hooliganism which eventually culminated into a riot like situation at Fancy
Market. He has submitted that when the representatives of this Court came
to visit his shop, he was unsure about their credentials and requested them to
wait so that he could contact his lawyer. However, he succumbed to their
pressure and allowed them to search his shop and pleads that he had no role
in the attack that took place against the Advocate Commissioners on
13.01.2015. In his subsequent affidavit tendered in compliance with the
order of this Court order dated 12.02.2018, he has taken the plea of alibi and
states that he was not in town on the date of the incident.
45. R-10 i.e., Saheb Alam, is the Director of M/s Alfa Int., with multiple
outlets at Shops 10, 10A, 14, 16, 7 and 45 in Green Plaza Market, and also at
G-7 and G-8, MK Plaza, 83 Manshatala Lane, Khidderpore. His shop was to
be inspected by Advocate Commissioner Mr. Amit Chhabra, Advocate. In
his affidavit in reply to the SCN dated 09.02.2015, he has submitted that he
was not present at his shop at the time when the inspection took place. He
has also pleaded that none of the Advocate Commissioners have made any
specific allegations against him or any of his representatives having
misbehaved with them. He contends that the Advocate Commissioners, in
their affidavit submitted before this Court, rather than pointing out at any
specific person have simply alleged that some shopkeepers and other
persons were creating a commotion and were armed with rods and hockey
sticks. In his subsequent affidavit, submitted in reply of the additional
affidavit of the DCP (Enforcement Branch), Kolkata Police, he has pleaded
that he is innocent and in no way connected with the persons who have been
arrested for attacking the Advocate Commissioners.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 21 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
46. R-11 i.e., Rashid Iqbal, is the proprietor of M/s Flashing Tech,
located at Shop No. F4, First Floor, MK Plaza, 83A Manshatala Lane,
Khidderpore. His shop was to be inspected by Advocate Commissioner Ms.
Nishu Singla. In his reply affidavit to the SCN dated 09.02.2015, he has
submitted that the learned Advocate Commissioner Ms. Nishu Singhla,
Advocate, had gone beyond the scope of her commission by asking the sales
men inside the shop to open the cartons that were lying inside the shop. He
denies any role in the violence that took place in the market on the date of
the incident. He has pleaded that the Advocate Commissioners did not
following the Court‟s directions in the order appointing them. In his
subsequent affidavit, submitted in reply of the additional affidavit of the
DCP (Enforcement Branch), Kolkata Police, he has submitted that he is not
connected with the persons who have been arrested by police for attacking
the Advocate Commissioner and has pleaded his innocence.
47. R-13 i.e., Rumaish Akhtar, is the proprietor of M/s Super Traders,
Shop No. F2, First Floor, MK Plaza, 83 Manshatala Lane, Khidderpore. His
shop was to be inspected by Advocate Commissioner Mr. Kunal Prakash,
Advocate. In his affidavit tendered in compliance of SCN dated 09.02.2015,
he has submitted that the Advocate Commissioner has been unable to point
out which shop was visited by him and who was present in the shop at the
time when he was assaulted. He further pleads that he was not in Kolkata at
the time of the incident and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
He has submitted that he had left for Mumbai on 12.01.2015 and was there
till 14.01.2015 and thereafter he was in Delhi from 15.01.2015 till
17.01.2015 and returned to Kolkata on 17.01.2015. He has tendered his
unconditional apology and pleaded his innocence.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 22 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
48. R-14 i.e., Md. Salahuddin, is the proprietor of M/s Amir Telecom,
situated at I-Plaza, Shop No. 15 (first floor), 82B, Manshatala Lane,
Khidderpore, Kolkata. His shop was to be inspected by Advocate
Commissioner Ms. Medha Sachdev, Advocate. In his affidavit in reply to
the SCN dated 09.02.2015, he has pleaded that he was out of station on the
date of the incident and neither he nor any of his employees had any role in
the the obstruction or violence that took place against the Advocate
Commissioners at Fancy Market on 13.01.2015. He has also submitted that
there are no specific allegations against him.
49. R-15 i.e., Md Farooque, is the proprietor of M/s Master Trading
Corporation, I-Plaza, with units at Shop Nos. 32 (first floor) and 17 (ground
floor), 82B, Manshatala Lane. His shop was to be inspected by Advocate
Commissioner Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. In his reply affidavit to the
SCN dated 09.02.2015, he has pleaded that the SCN was issued to him
merely because he is a defendant in CS(OS) 4024/2014 and he was at his
residence on the date of the incident. He further states that he was apprised
telephonically by some of his employees regarding the incident but had no
knowledge whatsoever regarding the violence that took place at Fancy
Market. He has reiterated these averments in his affidavit tendered in
compliance with the Order of this Court dated 12.02.2018.
50. R-16 i.e., Perbesh Alam, is the proprietor of M/s Impress, I-Plaza
Market, Shop No. 3 (ground floor), 82B, Manshatala Lane, Khidderpore.
His shop was to be inspected by Advocate Commissioner Mr. Sandeep
Sharma, Advocate. In his reply affidavit to the SCN dated 09.02.2015, he
has expressed his regret about the violence that took place at Fancy Market
on 13.01.2015. However, he has maintained that he had no role in the attack
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 23 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
that took place on the Advocate Commissioners and was out of station on
the date of the incident.
51. R-17 i.e., Niyaz Ahmed, in his affidavit reply to the SCN dated
09.02.2015, has submitted that he has no role whatsoever in the violence that
took place in Fancy Market on 13.01.2015. He has pleaded that he is a small
time shopkeeper and is not well educated. He further states that on the date
of the incident when when the raiding team visited the market it caused a
sudden disruption that affected the entire market association causing a chain
reaction whereafter things spiralled out of control. He has pleaded that when
the Advocate Commissioners visited his store, he presumed that they were
imposters and requested them to wait so that he could contact his lawyer and
ascertain their credentials. Nonetheless they proceeded and he complied
with their request. He has also averred that the ordeal created in the market
was partly attributable to the decision of the Advocate Commissioners to not
take adequate police assistance. As per the additional affidavit of the DCP
(Enforcement Branch), Kolkata Police dated 14.08.2015, he is a part time
attendant of M/s Renu Benu Stores. In his affidavit tendered in compliance
with the order of this Court Order dated 12.02.2018, he has submitted that
he had no role in the incident and runs a small Toy Stall in front of Fancy
Market and is totally innocent. R-17 has been identified in the TIP
conducted by Kolkata Police on 19.02.2015.
52. R-18 i.e., Md. Asif, is purported to be associated with M/s Renu
Benu Stores. In his reply affidavit to the SCN dated 09.02.2015, he has
submitted that he had no involvement in the violence that took place in the
market. He has submitted that he is a law abiding citizen with clean
antecedents. He further states that he is a small time shopkeeper and is not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 24 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
well educated. He states that on the date of the incident when the Advocate
Commissioners came to visit his shop he thought that they were
“impersonators”. He states that he pleaded with them to let him contact his
lawyer. However, they refused to do so and ultimately he complied with
their demand and let them search the store premises. In his affidavit
tendered in compliance with the order of this Court dated 12.02.2018, he has
stated that he had in fact tried to save the Advocate Commissioner who was
being surrounded by the crowd. He has reiterated that he had no role in the
alleged incident and is being falsely implicated. He has also tendered his
unconditional apology. R-18 has been identified in the TIP conducted on
19.02.205 by Kolkata Police.
53. R-19 i.e., Md. Jasim, in his affidavit reply to the SCN issued vide an
order of this Court dated 09.02.2015, has submitted that he repairs cycles
and does not reside in the market. He has averred that he has been falsely
implicated by Kolkata Police and had no role in the violence that took place
against the Advocate Commissioners at Fancy Market. As per the additional
affidavit of the DCP (Enforcement Branch), Kolkata Police dated
14.08.2015, he was working as a porter in Fancy Market. He has reiterated
that he is a street hawker and has nothing to do with the incident.
54. R-20 i.e., Md. Salauddin, in his affidavit in reply to the SCN issued
vide an order of this Court dated 09.02.2015, has submitted that he is in no
way connected to the violence that took place against the Advocate
Commissioners and works as a bus conductor. He has also stated that he is
neither a resident of the vicinity nor is he in any manner connected to the
subject matter of the Civil Suit, commercial activities, or any of the
shopkeepers of the market. As per the additional affidavit of the DCP
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 25 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
(Enforcement Branch), Kolkata Police dated 14.08.2015, he was working as
a porter in Fancy Market. In his affidavit tendered in compliance with the
order of this Court order dated 12.02.2018, he has reiterated that he is totally
innocent. He has also tendered his unconditional apology.
55. R-21 i.e., Anwar Hussain, in his affidavit in reply to the SCN, issued
vide an Order of this Court dated 09.02.2015, has submitted that he works as
a mason and has nothing to with the incident whatsoever. He has also
pleaded that, he has been falsely implicated by the Kolkata Police and has
neither been named in the F.I.R. nor has he been arrested from the spot. In
support of his averment he has furnished an affidavit by Saheb Alam, who is
the director of M/s Alfa Int., stating that he never worked for him. He has
also relied on a letter issued by Garib Niwaz Majdoor Committee and
Kolkata Municipal Ward No. 77 Councillor which states that he is a mason.
As per the additional affidavit of the DCP (Enforcement Branch), Kolkata
Police dated 14.08.2015, he was working as an attendant at M/s Alfa Int. In
his reply to the aforementioned affidavit, he has denied these averments and
states that he has been arrested on the basis of mere apprehension. He has
been identified in the TIP dated 12.02.2015. However, he states that he has
been incorrectly identified.
56. R-22 i.e., Lalchand Khan, in his affidavit reply to the SCN dated
18.02.2015 states that he is a daily wage worker. However, as per the
additional affidavit of the DCP (Enforcement Branch), Kolkata Police dated
14.08.2015, he is purported to be an attendant at M/s Alfa Int. In his reply to
the counter affidavit, he has stated that he is innocent and he has no
involvement in the incident and has been arrested by the Kolkata Police on
mere apprehension. He has been identified in the TIP conducted on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 26 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
12.02.2015 and 03.03.2015. However, he has contended that he was
incorrectly identified.
57. R-23 i.e., Faiyaz Khan in his affidavit in reply to the Show Cause
Notice issued vide an order of this Court dated 09.02.2015, has pleaded that
he is not connected to any of the shopkeepers or parties in the original civil
suit in any manner. He has pleaded that that he is a street hawker and has
been falsely implicated by Kolkata Police. As per the additional affidavit of
the DCP (Enforcement Branch), Kolkata Police he is purported to be
attached with M/s Icon. In his reply to the aforementioned affidavit he has
pleaded that he has no knowledge of the incident and works as a hawker in
nearby Metro Cinema, Esplanade, outside the jurisdiction of Kidderpore
area. He is neither a resident of the market vicinity nor is he connected with
the unfortunate incident. In his affidavit tendered in compliance with the
order of this Court order dated 12.02.2018, he has reiterated that he is a daily
wage earner and has no role in the incident. He has been identified in TIP
conducted on 19.02.2015. However, he maintains that he has been wrongly
identified.
58. R-24, i.e., Nishar Ali, in his affidavit tendered in reply to the SCN
dated 09.02.2015, has pleaded that he had no knowledge of the incident
which took place on 13.01.2015 at Fancy Market. Furthermore, he has
averred that he works as a tea seller adjacent to his residence. He has also
pleaded that he is neither a resident of the vicinity nor was he connected to
the unfortunate incident which took place. As per the additional affidavit of
the DCP (Enforcement Branch), Kolkata Police he is purported to be
attached with M/s Obsession Naaz. In his affidavit tendered in compliance
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 27 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
with the order of this Court order dated 12.02.2018, he has reiterated the
above position. He has been identified in TIP dated 16.03.2015.
59. R-25 i.e., Abul Halin, has pleaded in his affidavit that he is not
connected to any of the shopkeepers or defendants in the original civil suit.
He has submitted that he works as a labour and is not connected to the attack
on the Advocate Commissioners that took place on 13.01.2015. He is
purported to be a broker of Fancy Market as per the additional affidavit of
the DCP (Enforcement Branch), Kolkata Police. In his affidavit tendered in
compliance of the order of this Court dated 12.02.2018, he has reiterated the
above position.
60. R-26 i.e., Aftab Ahmed alias Vicky, has averred that on the date of
the incident he was at Woodland Hospital, Alipur, for his treatment. He has
also averred that he had no role in the incident and is not connected to any
party either directly or indirectly. Additionally, he has also submitted that he
does not have any commercial activities with any of the plaintiffs or
respondents. As per the additional affidavit of the DCP (Enforcement
Branch), Kolkata Police, he is purported to be attached with M/s Icon. In his
affidavit tendered in compliance with the order of this Court order dated
12.02.2018, he has submitted that he is a street hawker and has reiterated
that he is innocent. He has been identified in TIP dated 21.03.2015.
61. R-27 i.e., Ajmatullah Khan, is purported to be attached with M/s
Obsession Naaz as per the additional affidavit of the DCP (Enforcement
Branch), Kolkata Police. However, in his affidavit he states that he is being
falsely implicated. In his affidavit tendered in compliance with the order of
this Court dated 18.02.2015 he has averred that that he has no knowledge
about the incident and is not connected to any party in the Civil Suit.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 28 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
Furthermore, he states that he does not reside within the market vicinity and
is completely innocent. He has averred that he is a merchant trader and had
no role in the incident. He has been identified in TIP conducted on
21.03.2015. He is the son of R-1, i.e., Rajullah Khan is the proprietor of M/s
Obsession Naaz.
62. R-28 i.e., Asif Khan, in his affidavit tendered in compliance of the
order of this Court dated 18.02.2015 has pleaded that that he is in no way
connected with the Civil Suit or any commercial activities or any
shopkeeper of the market. He has submitted that he works as a waiter on a
daily wage basis and is neither a resident of the market nor of its vicinity. In
his affidavit tendered in compliance with the order of this Court order dated
12.02.2018, he has reiterated the above position.
63. R-29 i.e., Nadeem Ahmed, in his affidavit tendered in compliance of
order dated 29.07.2024, has pleaded that he is a garment trader and has
nothing to do with the incident. He states that he has been falsely implicated
by Kolkata Police.
64. R-30 i.e., Shabbir Ali, in his affidavit tendered in compliance of order
dated 29.07.2024 has submitted that he had been summoned by this Court
vide its order dated 23.04.2024 and has been impleaded as Respondent
No.30, on the submissions made by the Kolkata Police. He has pleaded that
he had been arrested by Kolkata Police and is one of the accused in Case
No.13 of 2015 P.S. Watgunj. He states that he is an independent
businessman dealing in reselling of mobile covers and has no role
whatsoever with the violence that took place in Fancy Market on 13.01.2015
and is not connected with the parties to the original suit or any of the
shopkeepers.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 29 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
65. Heard learned Amicus Curiae, learned Counsel appearing for the
Contemnors and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Kolkata
Police and perused the material on record.
66. Learned Amicus Curiae has taken this Court to the various affidavits
and has described in detail as to how the incident took place and argued that
the Respondents only joined together to ensure that the Advocate
Commissioners do not carry their task entrusted to them by the Court. He
submits that it was a concerted and group effort to scare the Advocate
Commissioners away, and an attempt was made to create fear in the minds
of the LCs and the entire purpose of the incident was to somehow thwart the
wheels of justice.
67. Per contra, learned Counsels for the Respondents/Contemnors, have
in unison, tendered unconditional apology. Each of the Counsels have tried
to establish that they were not aware of the orders of the Court, since the
Court order had not been served upon them.
68. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 17 and 18 states that they were
merely bystanders who had nothing to do with the violence that took place
against the Advocate Commissioners and had been picked up from the
market by the Police.
69. Before this Court proceeds ahead to ascertain as to which of the
Contemnors have obstructed in the administration of justice, it is necessary
to delineate the scope of contempt.
70. The power to punish for contempt is a special power and needs to be
exercised with care and caution, and it should be used sparingly by the
Courts. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question
whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 30 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
and whether the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such
disobedience is contumacius or not. The Apex Court in Jhareswar Prasad
Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352, has observed as under:-
“11. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold
the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the
respect and authority commanded by the courts of
law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen
and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if
respect for the judiciary is undermined.
(emphasis supplied)
71. A perusal of the above judgment shows that the purpose of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) is to
prevent interference in the course of administration of justice.
72. The contours of contempt jurisdiction has been further explained in
Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204, wherein the Apex Court
has observed as under:-
“11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the
law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful
disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to
the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and
authority commanded by the courts of law are the
greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his
rights shall be protected and the entire democratic
fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect
of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the
contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the
hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates
as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be
fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise
jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are
quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of
proof required in these proceedings is beyond allSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 31 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to
impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in
exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere
probabilities. (Vide V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta
[V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697
: 1993 SCC (L&S) 202 : (1993) 23 ATC 400] , Chhotu
Ram v. Urvashi Gulati [Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi
Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1196] ,
Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh [Anil Ratan
Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21] , Bank of
Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya [Bank of Baroda v.
Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360] , Sahdeo
v. State of U.P. [Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3
SCC 705 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 451] and National
Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus [National
Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600
: (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 481 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 172] .)
12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be
established that disobedience of the order is “wilful”.
The word “wilful” introduces a mental element and
hence, requires looking into the mind of a
person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an
indication of one’s state of mind. “Wilful” means
knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and
deliberate with full knowledge of consequences
flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental,
bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability.
Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or
negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad
purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly,
obstinately or perversely”. Wilful act is to be
distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not
include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The
deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows
what he is doing and intends to do the same.
Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with
evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 32 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
of an order, but such disobedience is the result of
some compelling circumstances under which it was
not possible for the contemnor to comply with the
order, the contemnor cannot be punished.
“Committal or sequestration will not be ordered
unless contempt involves a degree of default or
misconduct.” (Vide S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.
Pattabiraman [S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.
Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591] , Rakapalli Raja
Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao
[Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani
Govinda Sehararao, (1989) 4 SCC 255 : AIR 1989 SC
2185] , Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana [Niaz
Mohammad v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332 :
AIR 1995 SC 308] , Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa
[Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, (2000) 3 SCC
282] , Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha
[Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha,
(2003) 11 SCC 1] , State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas
[State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 122 : AIR 2006 SC 258] and
Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE [Uniworth Textiles
Ltd. v. CCE, (2013) 9 SCC 753] .)xxx
15. It is well-settled principle of law that if two
interpretations are possible, and if the action is not
contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be
maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is
to be taken into consideration and the same must be
read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of
willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring
home the charge within the meaning of the Act. [See
Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak [Sushila Raje
Holkar v. Anil Kak, (2008) 14 SCC 392 : (2009) 2
SCC (L&S) 497] and Three Cheers Entertainment (P)
Ltd. v. CESC Ltd. [Three Cheers Entertainment (P)Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 33 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
Ltd. v. CESC Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 592 : AIR 2009 SC
735] ] ” (emphasis supplied)
73. In U. N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association, (2022) 1 SCC
101, after analysing the various principles of law on the point, the Apex
Court has quoted with approval the judgment passed in R. N. Dey v.
Bhagyabati Pramanik, (2000) 4 SCC 400. The relevant excerpts of the
Judgment of the Apex Court in U. N. Bora (supra), read as under:-
” 9. We do not wish to reiterate the aforesaid settled
principle of law except by quoting the reasoned
decision of this Court in Hukum Chand Deswal v.
Satish Raj Deswal [Hukum Chand Deswal v. Satish
Raj Deswal, (2021) 13 SCC 166 : 2020 SCC OnLine
SC 438] wherein the celebrated judgment in Ram
Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj [Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj,
(2014) 16 SCC 204 : (2015) 3 SCC (L&S) 311] , has
been quoted. The following paragraphs would govern
the aforesaid principle : (Hukum Chand Deswal case
[Hukum Chand Deswal v. Satish Raj Deswal, (2021)
13 SCC 166 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 438] , SCC paras
20-21 & 25-27)“20. At the outset, we must advert to the contours
delineated by this Court for initiating civil contempt
action in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj [Ram Kishan v.
Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204 : (2015) 3 SCC
(L&S) 311] . In paras 11, 12 and 15 of the reported
decision, this Court noted thus : (SCC pp. 209-11)
„11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the
law courts power to punish an offender for his
wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or
obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason
that respect and authority commanded by the
courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an
ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 34 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
and the entire democratic fabric of the society will
crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is
undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt
jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of
the courts of law but that by itself operates as a
string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither
be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to
exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The
proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and
therefore, standard of proof required in these
proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It
would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for
contempt on the authorities in exercise of the
contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide
V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta [V.G. Nigam v.
Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697 : 1993 SCC
(L&S) 202] , Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati
[Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530
: 2001 SCC (L&S) 1196] , Anil Ratan Sarkar v.
Hirak Ghosh [Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh,
(2002) 4 SCC 21] , Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin
Hasan Daya [Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan
Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360] , Sahdeo v. State of U.P.
[Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705 :
(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 451] and National Fertilizers
Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus [National Fertilizers Ltd. v.
Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 481 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 172] .)
12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to
be established that disobedience of the order is
“wilful”. The word “wilful” introduces a mental
element and hence, requires looking into the mind
of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions,
which is an indication of one’s state of mind.
“Wilful” means knowingly intentional, conscious,
calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of
consequences flowing therefrom. It excludesSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 35 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts
or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not
encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The
act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without
justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or
perversely”. Wilful act is to be distinguished from
an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly
or inadvertently. It does not include any act done
negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate
conduct of a person means that he knows what he
is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore,
there has to be a calculated action with evil
motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience
of an order, but such disobedience is the result of
some compelling circumstances under which it
was not possible for the contemnor to comply with
the order, the contemnor cannot be punished.
“Committal or sequestration will not be ordered
unless contempt involves a degree of default or
misconduct.” (Vide S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.
Pattabiraman [S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.
Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591] , Rakapalli
Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda
Sehararao [Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Rao v.
Naragani Govinda Sehararao, (1989) 4 SCC 255]
, Niaz Mohd. v. State of Haryana [Niaz Mohd. v.
State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332] , Chordia
Automobiles v. S. Moosa [Chordia Automobiles v.
S. Moosa, (2000) 3 SCC 282] , Ashok Paper
Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha [Ashok Paper
Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC
1] , State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas [State of
Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 : 2006
SCC (L&S) 122] and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v.
CCE [Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, (2013) 9
SCC 753] .
***
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 36 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
15. It is well-settled principle of law that if two
interpretations are possible, and if the action is
not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would
not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the
order is to be taken into consideration and the
same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the
element of willingness is an indispensable
requirement to bring home the charge within the
meaning of the Act. [See Sushila Raje Holkar v.
Anil Kak [Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak, (2008)
14 SCC 392 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 497] and
Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. CESC Ltd.
[Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. CESC
Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 592] ]”
74. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments shows that the purpose of
contempt is to uphold the majesty of law and to punish an offender for his
wilful disobedience or obstruction to the majesty of law for the reason that
respect and authority commanded by Courts are the greatest guarantee to an
ordinary citizen that his rights would be protected and the fabric of the
society will crumble down if the respect for the judiciary is undermined. To
bring out the case of interference in the administration of justice, the
Contemnors actually must know that their conduct is oriented towards
interfering in the administration of justice. Without such knowledge, a
person cannot be punished for criminal contempt.
75. Applying the said parameters to the facts of the present case, it
transpires that this Court vide Order dated 23.12.2014 passed in CS (OS)
4024/2014 had appointed 11 Advocate Commissioners whose job was to
visit a few places wherein it was alleged that counterfeit products of the
Plaintiff are being sold.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 37 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
76. The Advocate Commissioners who went to the shops have been
manhandled and beaten up. It is stated that a mob of around 200 people got
together in the act. Out of the 200 people, how many people knew about the
orders of the Court has yet not been established. Mere bystanders who have
been misguided about the incident who without knowing that they are in fact
interfering in the administration of justice cannot be brought within the four
corners of the Act, as they do not fall within the definition of criminal
contempt. Chargesheets have been filed against them for other IPC offences
and this Court is not making any observations regarding the proceedings in
the said criminal trial.
77. Respondent No.19, is a cycle repair labourer, Respondent No.20 is a
bus conductor, Respondent No. 25 is a daily wage labourer, Respondent
No.28 is a waiter on daily wages, Respondent No.29 is a garment trader and
not a shopkeeper and not connected with any shops, Respondent No.30 is an
independent businessman who deals in reselling of mobile covers. These
Respondents cannot be said to be in any way connected with the shops and
they seem to be mere bystanders. There is nothing on record to show that
they could have in any way have had any knowledge of the orders of the
Court or that they intended to interfere with the administration of justice.
These Respondents are, therefore, absolved from the contempt proceedings
and their notices stand discharged.
78. This Court is not making any comment as to whether they were
participants of the mob who beat up the Advocate Commissioners. Since
there is no material against them of their having any knowledge of the Court
orders, the purpose for which the Advocate Commissioners were coming to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 38 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
the market and that they wanted to interfere with the administration of
justice, this Court is not inclined to proceed further against them.
79. This Court is only concerned with such of those persons against
whom there is material to show that they have taken steps to prevent the
Advocate Commissioners from carrying out the commission. This exercise
can be summarised in the following manner:-
S. Name of Premises to be Place of Manner of Persons Identification
No. the Local visited assault assault involved
Commissio
ner
1. Mr.Shravan M/s Obsession M/s Grabbed by i. R-1, i.e.,
Sahary Naaz, Fancy Obsession his neck, Rajullah Khan
market, Shop Naaz, pushed and (Prioprietor-
No.38 (ground Fancy dragged into M/s
floor), market, the building, Obsession
25, Karl Marx Shop No.38 kicked with Naaz)
Sarani, (ground lathis and ii. R-24, i.e., R-24 has
Khidderpore, floor), rods. Nishar Ali been
Kolkata-700023. iii. R-27, i.e., identified in
Received Ajmatullah TIP dated
blows on nose Khan @ 16.03.2015.
which Mintu
knocked two R-27 has
upper front been
teeth. identified in
TIP dated
Received 21.03.2015.
multiple
injuries to
face, neck and
chest.
2. Mr.Ankur (a) M/s Renu As stated in Was assaulted i. R-2, i.e.,
Mittal Benu Stores, Para 5 of and received Asraf Ali
Fancy market, Mr. injuries to his (Properietor
Shop No.29, Siddharth leg. - M/s Renu
25, Karl Marx Khatana's Benu Stores)
Sarani, affidavit ii. R-17, i.e., R-17 and
Khidderpore, that he was Niyaz R-18 have
Kolkata- 700023 beaten up Ahmed been
and, around iii. R-18, i.e., identified in
(b) M/s ALTS Shop No.46 Md. Asif. TIP dated
Trading, Fancy which 19.02.2015.
market, Shop belongs to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 39 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
No.30/33, M/s Imaxx
25, Karl Marx Mobile
Sarani, Zone.
Khidderpore,
Kolkata - 700023
also at
35/A/H/4,
Kabitirtha Sarani,
Watgunge Street,
Kolkata -700023.
3. Mr. M/s Imaxx M/s Imaxx Dragged out i. R-4, i.e.,
Siddharth Mobile Zone, Mobile of the shop, Nasrul
Khatana Fancy market, Zone, kicked and Haque
Shop No.46 Fancy assaulted. (Proprietor-
(ground floor), market, M/s Imaxx
25, Karl Marx Shop No.46 Mobile
Sarani, (ground Zone)
Khidderpore, floor),
Kolkata -700023
and,
M/s Taha
Telecom, Fancy
market, Shop
No.45,
25, Karl Marx
Sarani,
Khidderpore,
Kolkata -700023.
4. Mr. Amit M/s Alfa Int., M/s Alfa Mr Chhabra i. R-10, i.e.,
Chhabra Green Plaza Int., Green was pulled out Saheb Alam,
market, Shop Plaza of the shop, (Director of
No.10, 10A, 14, market, M. beaten up and M/s Alfa Int.)
16, 7 and 45, K. Plaza, threatened ii. R-21, i.e.,
25, Karl Marx Shop with rods, Anwar R-21 has
Sarani, No.G-7 and sticks and Hossain been
Khidderpore, G-8. dandas. iii. R-22, i.e., identified in
Kolkata - 700023 Members of Lalchand TIP dated
Also at the mob Khan 12.02.2015
M.K.Plaza, Shop grabbed his and
No.G-7 and G-8 collar, kicked 03.03.2015.
83, Manshatala him and pulled R-22 has
Lane, his hair. been
Khidderpore, identified in
Kolkata - 700023. TIP dated
12.02.2015
5. Ms. Nishu M/s Flashing M/s Upon reaching i. R-11, i.e.,
Singla Tech, M.K.Plaza, Flashing the shop, she Rashid Iqbal
83A, Manshatala Tech, found four (Properietor-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 40 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
Lane (first floor), M.K.Plaza, cartons lying M/s Flashing
shop 83A, inside the Tech)
No.F4, Manshatala shop, two
Khidderpore, Lane (first attendants in
Kolkata - 700023 floor). the shop made
phone calls,
whereafter a
mob wielding
rods and
hockey sticks
came and
threatened her
team with dire
consequences.
6. Ms. M/s Flashing M/s Was i. R-11, i.e.,
Raspreet Tech, Green Plaza Flashing obstructed and Rashid Iqbal
Kaur Market, Second Tech, threatened but (Properietor-
Floor, Shop Green not assaulted. M/s Flashing
No.S4, S5 and Plaza Tech)
20-F Market,
Karl Marx Sarani, Second
Khidderpore, Floor, Shop
Kolkata -700023. No.S4 and
S5.
7. Mr.Kunal M/s. Super M/s. Super Upon reaching i. R-13, i.e.,
Prakash Traders, Traders, the shop a Rumaish
M.K.Plaza (first M.K.Plaza crowd Akhtar
floor), (first floor). gathered (Proprietor-
83, Manshatala armed with M/s. Super
Lane, Shop baseball bats, Traders)
No.F2, iron rods etc.
Khidderpore, and threatened
Kolkata -70002. to kill him.
80. The plea of alibi raised by Respondent No.1, Respondent No 4 and
Respondent No 13 cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that since
Respondent No.1 was not present in the country and Respondent 4 and 13
were not in Kolkata, they were unaware of what has happened. The
affidavits placed on record clearly demonstrate that Respondent No.1 and
Respondent 4 and 13 were in the knowledge of the orders of this Court and
they only wanted the Advocate Commissioners appointed by this Court toSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 41 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
fail in the task entrusted to them by the Court. Rather, a mob was incited by
the shopkeepers so that they could teach the Advocate Commissioners a
lesson and scare them away without carrying the task entrusted to them by
this Court.
81. Advocate Commissioners were given the task to visit shops, prepare
inventory of counterfeit products being sold under the trademark „Samsung‟
and the oval slanted logo or any other mark deceptively similar to the
Plaintiff‟s trademark. The Advocate Commissioners were directed to seize
all such articles, seal them and then release them on Superdari with
directions to produce them before the Court as and when required. The
Court Commissioners have been brutally beaten up by the Contemnors,
striking terror in their minds and forcing them to flee from the place. The
facts reveal that the idea was to dissuade Local Commissioners from
performing the work assigned to them by the Court. Interfering with the
work assigned to the Advocate Commissioners amounts to interference in
the administration of justice. If such of those persons who have interfered
with the administration of justice are not dealt with heavy hands, the majesty
of law will come down in the eyes of ordinary citizens which will have a
deleterious effect on the fabric of the society. It is, therefore, imperative;
rather, duty of the Court, to ensure that people who interfere in the
administration of justice are dealt with severely so that people respect and
adhere to law for the rule of law to prevail.
82. Viewed in this manner, Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 21,
22, 24 and 27 have interfered in the administration of justice and are,
therefore, liable to be punished for criminal contempt. The details of the said
Respondents are tabulated hereinbelow:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 42 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
S. No. Respondent Name
Rajullah Khan, i.e., Proprietor of M/s
1. Respondent No.1
Obsession Naaz
Asraf Ali, i.e., License Holder of M/s
2. Respondent No.2
Renu Benu Stores
Nasrul Haque, i.e., Proprietor of M/s
3. Respondent No.4
Imaxx Mobile Zone
4. Respondent No.10 Saheb Alam, i.e., Director of M/s Alfa Int.
Rashid Iqbal, i.e., Proprietor of M/s
5. Respondent No.11
Flashing Tech
Rumaish Akhtar, i.e., Proprietor of M/s
6. Respondent No.13
Super Traders
Niyaz Ahmed, i.e., Attendant at M/s Renu
7. Respondent No.17
Benu Stores
Md. Asif, i.e., Attendant at M/s Renu
8. Respondent No.18
Benu Stores
Anwar Hossain, i.e., Attendant at M/s Alfa
9. Respondent No.21
Int.
Lalchand Khan, i.e., Attendant at of M/s
10. Respondent No.22
Alfa Int.
Nishar Ali, i.e., Attendant at M/s
11. Respondent No.24
Obsession Naaz
Ajmatullah Khan @ Mintu, i.e., Attendant
at M/s Obsession Naaz & S/o Rajullah
12. Respondent No.27
Khan, i.e., Proprietor of M/s Obsession
Naaz
83. Though all these Respondents have tendered their unconditional
apologies but looking at the fact that Advocate Commissioners of this Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 43 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31
have been manhandled and they have suffered serious injuries and also the
fact that Police Officers who were accompanying the Advocate
Commissioners have also suffered serious injuries, this Court is inclined to
impose a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of these Contemnors and sentence them
to undergo simple imprisonment for one day.
84. Needless to state and it is reiterated that the observations made in this
Judgment are confined only to the proceedings initiated under the Contempt
of Courts Act and not for any other purpose. The criminal cases which have
been initiated would be decided on the weight of the evidence adduced in
those cases.
85. This Court expresses its appreciation for the assistance provided by
the learned Amicus Curiae.
86. The contempt notices in respect of the other Respondents are
discharged.
87. Let the medical examination of the Contemnors, who have been
punished, be conducted in Tihar Jail.
88. The petition is disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 22, 2025
hsk/ps/VR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015 Page 44 of 44
By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR
Signing Date:22.08.2025
16:55:31