SUNANDA MALLICK Vs. DILIP KUMAR GOOPTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is to consider an application virtually under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner is the plaintiff. It is stated in the petition that the suit being No. 330 of 1990 was filed on 7.4.1990 against the defendants with the prayer for declaration that the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu, deceased passed by intestate succession to the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the instrument dated 20th January, 1981 has in fact in no manner affected claim of the plaintiff to such estate and the declaration that the plaintiff has now th share in the estate of the brother of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu along with other incidental reliefs. In the said suit an application was filed by the plaintiff for appointment of receiver and injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with and/or disposing of and/or encumbering and/or withdrawing and/or in any manner transferring or parting with the possession of any portion of the movable or immovable properties of the said joint estate. On 17th April, 1990 an interim order was passed by Mr. Justice Prabir Kumar Majumdar restraining the defendants to withdraw a sum of Rs. 10,28,000/- and odd lying in the joint account. The said application was finally disposed of by His Lordship Mr. Justice Prabir Kumar Majumdar by an order dated 3rd July, 1990 whereby the respondents were restrained and injuncted from encumbering or selling the movable or immovable properties belonging to the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu. The respondents were further directed by that order that out of rent realisation, a portion equivalent to the share of the plaintiff and that of the defendant No. 3 would be set apart after deducting allexpenses, taxes etc. in a separate account until further orders. The interim order passed on 17th April, 1990 was also vacated by that final order. The respondents were further directed to furnish quarterly statements relating to rent realisation and disbursement thereof to the Advocate-on-Record of the plaintiff/petitioner and such statement of accounts was directed to be given by the end of September, 1990.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the respondent apart from the respondent Mo. 3 despite full knowledge of the order dated 3rd July, 1990 and despite repeated requests wilfully and deliberately violated the said order by not furnishing quarterly statements regarding rent realisation and also disbursement thereof to the Advocate-on-Record of the petitioner since 31st March, 1997. The respondents also violated the said order wilfully and deliberately by withdrawing a huge amount out of the said sum of Rs. 10,28,000/- and odd leaving a meagre sum of Rs. 2,28,700/- and odd now lying in their Joint Account No. 205026352006 with the HongKong & Sanghai Banking Corporation, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta. The said respondents had also in violation of the said order removed the ancestral ornaments and silver utensils belonging to the petitioners and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 being a portion belonging to the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu, since deceased, by breaking open the locker being Locker No. 142/4 of Punjab National Bank, New Market Branch, Calcutta. The respondents also in violation of the said order have not paid the statutory dues like Municipal Taxes, Wealth-tax and Income-tax on behalf of the estate of the deceased Ajoy Kumar Gooptu in spite of their realisation of rents regularly in respect of the said immovable properties. The said respondents further violated the said order wilfully and deliberately by distributing amongst themselves the movable properties left by the mother of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.The deceased Ajoy Kumar Gooptu had also a share in the said immovable property left by the mother of the petitioner and that of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(3.) In such circumstances, on 13th October, 1999 the petitioner filed a contempt application being C. C. No. 381 of 1999 corresponding to C.A.N. No. 1781 of 1999 before the Court with several prayers. Thereafter His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kalyanjyoti Sengupta by an order dated 14.10.1999 issued a rule against the respondents calling upon them to show-cause as to why they should not be committed to prison or otherwise penalised and suitably dealt with for having committed contempt of this Court wilfully, deliberately and contumaciously violating the order dated 3rd July, 1990. The respondents appeared before Justice Sengupta on 7th March, 2001 when the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 tendered unconditional apology and having regard to the age of the respondents and their conduct after filing of the contempt application His Lordship was pleased to take a lenient view in the matter with warning that in the event of further contempt there cannot be any mitigated circumstances to take any lenient view in future. By a separate order dated 14.3.2001 Justice Sengupta accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents and dispensed with their personal appearance. But even after those two orders the respondents had continued violating the order wilfully and deliberately and failed and neglected to furnish quarterly statements of accounts showing collection of rents and its disbursement since July, 2002 despite oral and written requests of the petitioner. Of late before filing of this application the petitioner came to know that the respondents again violated the said order and encumbered major vacant portion of the premises No. 7B, Middleton Street, Calcutta by entering into an agreement proposing to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of" the said vacant portion to Bata India Limited for a period well over seven years. The said Bata India Limited also proposed to change the nature and character of the ground floor portion of the said building for the purpose of using it as one of their show rooms and retail outlet centres on payment of huge amount of money to the respondents. The petitioner thereafter came to learn that the respondents had also encumbered the premises No. 7B, Middleton Street, Calcutta by inducting tenants like India Today, Jenson & Nicholson and I.F.B. in breach of violation of the injunction order. In such circumstances, the present application was filed with the prayers for appointment of receiver in respect of the property in question and for passing injunction order and also to attach the property as mentioned in schedules 'A' and 'B' and to sent the respondents to civil prison and also for other reliefs.