Rose Residency Private Limited v. Manis Ranisati Finvest Limited And ORS

ORDER SHEET OD-10 CC No. 2 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CONTEMPT) ORIGINAL SIDE ROSE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED

VERSUS

MANIS RANISATI FINVEST LIMITED & ORS.

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date: 21st January, 2021.

(Via Video Conference) Appearance:

Mr. Amritam Mandal, Adv.

Mr. Anil Chowdhury, Adv.

For the petitioner Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv.

For the respondents.

The Court :- The petitioner complains of violation of the order dated September 3, 2020 in this contempt petition.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the entire claim of the petitioner in the suit in which such order was passed stand satisfied. Since the respondents herein violated the order dated September 3, 2020, the petitioner is bringing such fact to the notice of the Court. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, although technically the respondents did execute a deed of conveyance subsequent to the order dated September 3, 2020, nonetheless the transactions

culminating into the execution of the deed of conveyance was entered into at least 15 years back. He submits that, on the purchasers pressing for the execution of deed of conveyance, the respondents unfortunately, executed the same subsequent to the order dated September 3, 2020. He submits that, the respondents did not have any intention of violating any order of the Court far less the order dated September 3, 2020. Since the entire claim of the petitioner in this suit stands satisfied the respondents' transgression, if any, be excused. He submits that, the respondents are tendering unqualified apology to the Court. In reply, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the entire claim of the petitioner was paid subsequent to the filing of the contempt petition.

Be that as it may, since the claim of the petitioner stands satisfied and since, the respondents tender their unqualified apology for violating the order, in my view, interest of justice would be sub-served by not initiating any contempt proceeding against the respondents. The respondents, however, are put on notice that transgression of orders of Court in future will be dealt with appropriately. In such circumstances, CC No. 2 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) snn.