State Bank Of India v. Purnendu Kumar Maji Dist Magistrate Purba Bardhaman

19.04.2024 mb C.P.A.N. 97 of 2024 In W.P.A. No. 22035 of 2023 State Bank of India Vs.

Bidhan Chandra Ray Mr. Pijush Kanti Ray, Mr. Sourajit Mukherjee ... for the petitioner Mr. Dwaipayan Basu Mallick ...for the alleged contemnor 1.

Learned counsel for the alleged contemnor submits at the outset that the alleged contemnor tenders unconditional apology for late compliance of the order of this Court.

2.

However, although due to certain unforeseen circumstances the order could not be complied with in time, the same has been complied with in the meantime.

3.

Learned counsel also hands over a copy of the order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in compliance of the order of this court.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compliance was post facto.

5.

However, considering the seriousness of the contempt jurisdiction and the fact that the gravity of the non-compliance in committing some delay in passing the order is not so high as to penalize the alleged contemnor in the contempt jurisdiction, C.P.A.N. 97 of 2024 is disposed of as infructuous keeping on record the copy of the order handed over in court today by learned counsel for the alleged contemnor to show compliance.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)