Bombay High Court
Echjay Industries Pvt Ltd vs Indus Powertech Inc on 4 January, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/3 42 CPCDL 33126-23 efile.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION IN COMMERCIAL DIVISION No. 33126 OF 2023 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 16800 OF 2023 Echjay Industries Pvt Ltd .. Petitioner Versus Indus Powertech Inc and ors .. Respondents ... Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rishika Harish, Rahul Dwarkadas, Mr.Areez Gazdar, Ms.Shireen Mistry and Mr.George Reji i/b Veritas Legal for the petitioner. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 4th JANUARY 2024 P.C:-
1 Alleging disobedience of the order dated 8/8/2023 in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 16800/2023, thereby injuncting the respondent no.1 from sourcing forgings/parts or products from RKFL and/or its subsidiaries, affiliates and/or engaging in any communication with them, and also restraining the respondent from using the 942 product which were sources from RKFL or supply the same to end users, the present Contempt Petition is filed.
Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2024 17:57:55 ::: 2/3 42 CPCDL 33126-23 efile.doc 2 The learned senior counsel Mr.Jagtiani has invited my attention to the email communications annexed to the Contempt Petition which reveal the correspondence addressed to one Mr. Debasis Ray of RKFL as regards the approval of drawing of certain part and discussion on the conduct of further business.
The email communication dated 18/10/2010, specifically make a reference to the APQP Linamar and there is also a reference to the Cold Forging Priority Drawing Approval Process in regards to '10R80 shafts'.
It is the specific submission of the learned counsel that the said correspondence is in the teeth of the injunction order, which has restrained the respondent, its subsidiaries, affiliates and anyone acting on its behalf from sourcing forgings/engineering, components from any other forging companies/products from respondent no.5 and/or its subsidiaries and/or other forging companies in India to source forgings/parts/engineering components/products.
Perusal of the correspondence annexed to the Contempt Petition prima facie appear to be in clear violation of the injunction order.
Hence, I deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, asking them to show cause as to why action under contempt of court should not be initiated against them.
Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2024 17:57:55 ::: 3/3 42 CPCDL 33126-23 efile.doc
Notice shall be served upon the respondents through Hamdast.
The respondents are at liberty to file their affidavit in reply within a period of four weeks.
Re-notify to 8/2/2024.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2024 17:57:55 :::