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 6]

Calcutta High Court

State Bank Of India vs Shashank Sethi & Ors on 31 August, 2018

Author: Sanjib Banerjee

Bench: Sanjib Banerjee

OD-4
                                     CC No.34 of 2018
                                            in
                                    BIFR No.510 of 1992
                                     CA No.33 of 2013

                           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                              Special Jurisdiction (Contempt)
                                      ORIGINAL SIDE


                                  STATE BANK OF INDIA
                                         Versus
                                 SHASHANK SETHI & ORS.

  BEFORE:

  The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
  Date : August 31, 2018.
                                                                                   Appearance:
                                                                         Mr. Joy Saha, Sr. Adv.
                                                                            Mr. S. Sanyal, Adv.
                                                                                      ...for SBI
                                                                Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury, Adv.
                                                                              Mr. S. Bose, Adv.
                                                                             Mr. R. Dutta, Adv.
                                                                                    ...for ADDA
                                                                             Mr. A.K. Sur, Adv.
                                                                               Md. H. Ali, Adv.
                                                                                      ...for UBI



              The Court : It is submitted by the petitioner that the alleged contemnors

have done no more than preferring an appeal to wrongfully hold on to the money that, in

terms of the relevant order of this Court, should be refunded to the Official Liquidator for

the Official Liquidator to pay the petitioner.

              The alleged contemnors say that the matter is running in the list, but the

petitioner says that there may not have been any change in the position over the last

four weeks since the same submission had been made four weeks back.

              The matter will now appear four weeks hence. In the event there is no stay

of the operation of the relevant order, the contempt petition may be proceeded with.
                                            2


             Liberty is given to Advocate for the petitioner to delete the name of the

original respondent no. 1 and incorporate the name of the present incumbent in office.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) sg.