Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sajjid Amir Khan vs Anoop Bartaria And Others ... on 4 September, 2023
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:20668]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 580/2015
IN
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1503/2012
Sajjid Amir Khan S/o Shri Amir Khan, Aged about 57 years, R/o
23/24, Sea Spring Cooperative Housing Society, Bj Road,
Bandstand, Bandra, Mumbai.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Anoop Bartania Director M/s R.f. Properties And Trading
Ltd Now Known As World Trade Park Ltd, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur Raj.
2. Anoop Bartaria S/o Shri Virendra Bartaria, R/o 61, Jai
Jawan Colony, Scheme No.iii, Tonk Raod Jaipur
3. Ruchi Bartaria W/o Shri Anoop Bartaria, R/o 61 Jai Jawan
Colony Scheme No. iii, Tonk Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yadu Nath Bhargava with Mr. Arun Jain for Mr. Sandeep Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. T.C. Sharma Mr. Naval Kishore Saini for Mr. S.N. Kumawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 04/09/2023 This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the interim order dated 20.11.2012 passed by this Court whereby, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding subject matter of the suit till disposal of the trial.
Inviting attention of this Court towards the FORM 2 (Annexure 5) under Section 75 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the aforesaid interim order, the respondents have increased their (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:46:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:20668] (2 of 3) [CCP-580/2015] share capital in the company. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed to purge the contempt and they may also be punished suitably.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the contents of the plaint especially, para 7 and the prayer clause, would submit that since, the interim order was confined to subject matter of the suit, it did not extend to the shares hold by them or increase in their share capital; but, to the extent of 60 lac shares which were to be transferred by the petitioner to them. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition.
Heard. Considered.
This Court has, vide its interim order dated 20.11.2012, contempt whereof is alleged, issued following direction:-
"1) The trial is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months.
2) The status quo as it exists today will be maintained by both the parties regarding subject matter of the suit till the conclusion of the trial."
A perusal of the contents of the plaint available on record as Annexure 1 reveals that its subject matter has been 60 lac shares of the company to be transferred by the petitioner to the respondents. Although, it is also mentioned therein that the petitioner has already transferred 33,45,000/- shares to the respondents; but, from the contents of para no.7 of the plaint and the prayer clause, it is established that the same were not subject matter of the suit. Since, indisputably, there has been no intermeddling by the respondents with the 60 lac shares to be transferred by the petitioner to them, the subject matter of suit, in (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:46:06 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:20668] (3 of 3) [CCP-580/2015] violation of the interim order dated 20.11.2012, this Court is not satisfied that any contempt is made out.
Resultantly, this contempt petition is dismissed. Notices are discharged.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/10 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:46:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)