Calcutta High Court
Ruchi Soya Industries Limited vs Avr Storage Tank Terminal Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 24 November, 2017
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
OD-3
CC No.56 of 2017
CS No.241 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Contempt)
ORIGINAL SIDE
RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Versus
AVR STORAGE TANK TERMINAL PVT. LTD. & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : 24th November, 2017.
Appearance:
Mr. Anuj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Asopa, Adv.
Mr. P. K. Dutt, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Ray, Adv.
The Court : By an order dated December 5, 2016, the second defendant in the suit was directed to effect supply of 330 MT of crude degummed soyabean oil to the petitioning plaintiff within a week from the date of such order. In default, the order recorded that the second defendant would have to furnish cash security to the tune of Rs.2.14 crore in favour of the Registrar, Original Side within three weeks from the date thereof. An injunction fell in place, restraining the second defendant from dealing with 2 or disposing of its AJC Bose Road office till the supply was effected in terms of the order. The further default clause was that if neither the oil was supplied nor the security furnished within the time indicated, the second defendant would remain restrained from withdrawing any money from any of its bank accounts without the express leave of the Court.
The supply was not effected, whether within a week from the date of the order dated December 5, 2016 or at any point of time thereafter. The security was not furnished within three weeks from December 5, 2016. The second defendant, JVL Agro Industries Limited, continued to operate its bank account with impunity despite having failed to effect supply of oil and furnish the security in terms of the order. The contemnor nos.3 to 10 are the directors or persons associated with the functioning of the second defendant in the suit.
The contemnors have now deposited the sum of Rs.2.14 crore with the Registrar, Original Side. The petitioner submits that for the colossal act of defiance on the part of the contemnors, they cannot be discharged for merely depositing the security that ought to have been furnished nearly a year back. In addition, the petitioner says that substantial time and costs have been expended by the petitioner in initiating and pursuing the contempt proceedings.
According the contemnors, the petitioner herein was substantially responsible for the security not being furnished within time since the petitioner apparently gave the contemnors an impression that a settlement could be worked out.
Whatever may have been the conduct of the petitioner, there was an order outstanding against the second defendant and the persons in control of the operations of the second defendant could not have allowed the second defendant to operate its bank accounts without the security first being furnished in terms of the order dated December 3 5, 2016. At the very least, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated by way of actual costs, even if the delay in furnishing the security is condoned and no order in the nature of punishment is passed against the contemnors.
Since the money has now been put in with the Registrar, Original Side, the delay on such account is condoned. However, the contemnors will pay costs assessed at Rs.2 lakh to the petitioner for instituting and pursuing the contempt proceedings. Such costs should be paid within three weeks from date, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to execute it as a decree of Court.
CC No.56 of 2017 is dropped on the above terms. The rule stands discharged.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) bp.