Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Ruchi Soya Industries Limited vs Avr Storage Tank Terminal Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 25 August, 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 : 25th August, 2017.

Appearance:

Mr. Anuj Singh, Adv.
Mr. S. E. Huda, Adv.
Mr. P. K. Dutt, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. Ray, Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Asopa, Adv.
The Court : Rule had been issued against the four contemnors and it is submitted on behalf of the alleged contemnors that the rule has been served only on three and, apart from the two present in Court, the third person has not been able to attend Court as she is unwell.
The presence of the alleged contemnor nos.3 and 6 in Court today is recorded and their further presence is dispensed with on their undertaking to be present 2 in Court when next required. The two other contemnors, against whom the rule has been issued, need not be present in Court for the time being.
Let the matter appear a fortnight hence.
The contempt appears to be in respect of the operation of bank accounts by the alleged contemnors without the alleged contemnors depositing the sum of Rs.2.14 crore that was required to be deposited with the Registrar, Original Side. The alleged contemnors seek now to make the deposit, which cannot be permitted at this stage.
The contemnors should file their individual affidavits-in-opposition and furnish details of the transactions in the bank accounts that have been operated in derogation of the order impugned, for the Court to assess the extent to which money has been taken out from the accounts so that an appropriate order may be made.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) bp.