Calcutta High Court
Bhagwati Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Tuhin Kanti Ghosh & Ors on 16 January, 2014
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
ORDER SHEET
CC No. 118 of 2013
GA No. 135 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Civil Jurisdiction ( Contempt )
ORIGINAL SIDE
BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
Versus
TUHIN KANTI GHOSH & ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY
Date : 16th January, 2014.
Appearance :
Mr. S. K. Kapoor, Senior Advocate.
Mr. P. K. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate.
... for the petitioner
Mr. Purnendu Das, Advocate.
Ms. Pratiti Das, Advocate.
... for the respdt. No.1
Mr. A. Chatterjee, Advocate.
Mr. T. Nag Chowdhury, Advocate.
Mr. A. Basu, Advocate.
... for respdt. Nos. 2 to 10.
The Court : Mr. Kapoor, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the contempt application, being CC No.118 of 2013, had
been preferred alleging violation of an order dated 12th September, 2005 passed
in GA No.2896 of 2005 arising out of CS No.227 of 2004 and that in the said
contempt application, inadvertently, an erroneous copy of the petition in GA
No.2896 of 2005 was annexed and that the alleged acts of violation had been
2
inadvertently framed on the basis that the prayer (a) in GA No.2896 of 2005 as
referred to in the order dated 12th September, 2005 was as follows :-
"(a) Injunction restraining the respondent no.1 whether by himself or by
his servants or agents or assigns or otherwise howsoever, from doing anything or taking any steps in relation to the said 2,25,920 shares in the respondent no.2- company except in accordance with the instruction of the petitioner."
A perusal of the records would, however, reveal that prayer (a) in the GA No.2896 of 2005 was as follows : -
"(a) An order directing the respondent no.1 to issue a mandate directing the respondent no.2 to make over the dividends in respect of the said 2,25,920 shares of the respondent no.2-company to the petitioner."
Mr. Kapoor, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that the application being GA No.135 of 2014 had been preferred for leave to withdraw the instant contempt application with liberty to file a fresh contempt application for violation of the order dated 12th September, 2005.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor nos.2 to 10, does not oppose the prayer of Mr. Kapoor towards withdrawal of the contempt application. But according to Mr. Chatterjee, no leave should be granted to file a fresh contempt application. Mr. Chatterjee further submits that the petitioner needs to be saddled with cost for the mistake on his part.
Mr. Purnendu Das, learned Counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor no.1, submits that no liberty can be granted by this Court for filing a contempt application afresh alleging violation of the order dated 12th September, 2005 and Mr. Das also submits that necessary cost needs to be imposed upon the petitioner.
3
Upon considering the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record, this Court allows the petitioner to withdraw the instant contempt application. Accordingly, the said contempt application stands dismissed as withdrawn.
The prayer for grant of liberty to file a fresh contempt application alleging violation of the order dated 12th September, 2005 stands rejected. In the event a contempt application is filed by the petitioner afresh, the same would be considered on its own merits.
Upon perusal of the contents of the instant application, I find that the firm of Advocates, namely M/s S. C. Dutta & Co., filed an application, being GA No. 2896 of 2005, on behalf of the petitioner and continued to represent the petitioner till 12th August, 2013 when the said firm gave a change in favour of M/s Jhunjhunwala & Co., the present Advocate-on-Record of the petitioner and at the time of giving such change, M/s S. C. Dutta & Co. could not hand over any cause paper to the petitioner and that the same were not traceable. Subsequent thereto, upon an inspection of the records on 19th December, 2013, it was ascertained that the petition relating to GA No.2896 of 2005 as annexed to the contempt application was not a correct copy and immediately thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application, being GA No.135 of 2014, praying for withdrawal of the contempt application. As immediately upon ascertainment of the said mistake the instant application had been filed, the prayer for imposition of cost upon the petitioner is refused.
The application, being GA No.135 of 2014, is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the observation made above.
4
As no affidavits had been called for from the alleged contemnors, the allegations made in the said application are deemed to have been denied by the said alleged contemnors.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.) rnc.