Bombay High CourtCPCD/1/2025disposed off

Pratekk Agarwaal v. Jambopay Express Private Limited

2025-12-05Hon'Ble Justice Shri Arif S. Doctor4 pages

1/4 902 CPCD-9-25.odt Salgaonkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

MILIND SALGAONKAR Date: 2025.12.11 11:33:53 +0530 MANDIRA MILIND SALGAONKAR ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.09 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.367 OF 2024 Jayant Kumar ..

Petitioner

Versus

Jambopay Express Private Limited & Ors.

Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (L) NO.344 OF 2025 Bhumika Rupani ..

Petitioner

Versus

Jambopay Express Private Limited & Ors.

Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (L) NO.35130 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.360 OF 2024 Vinayak Narayan Chitrigemath ..

Petitioner

Versus

Jambopay Express Private Limited 7 Ors.

Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.365 OF 2024 Pratekk Agarwaal ..

Petitioner

Versus

2/4 902 CPCD-9-25.odt Jambopay Express Private Limited & Ors.

Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.10 OF 2025 Meghana Verulkar ..

Petitioner

Versus

Jambopay Express Private Limited & Ors.

Respondents ...

Mr.Kunal Vaishnav with Mr.Vijeet Trivedi i/b Ganesh & Co. for the Petitioners.

Mr.Amitesh Singh i/b Mr.Devendra Singh for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.

Mr.Manan Dixit, present through VC.

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATE : 5th DECEMBER, 2025 ...

P.C:- 1.

On 14/02/2025, a show cause notice was issued to Respondent No.1, asking him to show cause as to why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against him. Pursuant thereto, there is appearance of the Respondent/Contemnor. Time and again this Court noted that there is no compliance of the directions issued and in fact, on one of the occasion, the Court also permitted the contempt to be purged, by making the necessary payment.

3/4 902 CPCD-9-25.odt 2.

The Contempt Petition was listed before me on 06/11/2025, when it is recorded that despite clear direction that if there is no compliance, the Contemnor shall remain present, but was not present and instead he referred to some proposal being extended to the Petitioner, which was plainly denied by the learned counsel representing the Petitioner. It is in light of this, while adjourning the Petition to 27/11/2025, it was directed thus :- "Upon due deliberation, either an amicable settlement is arrived at and the contempt is purged, or else the contemnor shall remain present in this Court on 27/11/2025." 3.

The proposal was permitted to be exchanged within a period of one week, so that it could be deliberated upon. However, nothing fruitful emerged and on 28/11/2025, Mr.Dixit, who had marked his appearance on-line, once again attempted to justify the disobedience, by submitting that he had forwarded the necessary proposal, but there was no response at the end of the Petitioner and this statement was once again denied by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 4.

Today, my attention is invited to the order of which the contempt is alleged, and to the reply filed pursuant to the show cause notice being issued.

Mr.Dixit, has marked his appearance on-line in the wake of the disruption in the flight schedule, as he could not mark his appearance before the Court in person and considering the exigency, I have exempted his appearance.

However, on his appearance through VC, he do not dispute the fact that under the orders of the Court, the liability

4/4 902 CPCD-9-25.odt of Rs.1.65 Crores is fastened on him in five Petitions, but he is insistent on one aspect, that when the investment was made, the company was in good shape, but as on today, the company is not in a position to return even the principal amount in entirety, and according to him, he has offered an amount of approximately Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs, which has been refused by the Petitioners. In my opinion it is rightly done, as the total liability fastened is about Rs.1.65 Crore.

Had it been the case that some dignified amount was offered by the Contemnor, learned counsel for the Petitioners say that it could have been considered, but since there is abject failure to even match the amount by 50%, the offer is outrightly declined by the counsel for the Petitioners. 5.

In the wake of the aforesaid, since I find that the only defence projected by the Contemnor is, the company is in bad shape and this definitely cannot be a defence, it is directed that the Contemnor, Mr.Dixit shall remain present before this Court on 19th December, 2025 at 10.30 a.m., and since, I am satisfied that prima facie case is made out for initiation of contempt proceedings, the charge shall be framed against him and the proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall be initiated.

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.)