SAJAL KUMAR MITRA Vs. CHANDRALEKHA MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for drawing up proceeding for contempt against the respondents/contemnors for wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated November 17, 2011 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah, South 24- Parganas in Title Suit No.168 of 2011, which was extended from time to time and was in force till the time of filing of the application before this Court.

(2.) The petitioner as plaintiff filed Title Suit No.168 of 2011 against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 being the defendants of the said suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the beneficial owner of and absolutely entitled to 8943 shares in Mitra S. K. Pvt. Ltd., an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said company) and that the plaintiff is the beneficial owner of half of the estate of Late Tapan Kumar Mitra including 8943 shares in the said company and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant nos.1 and 2 from transferring any portion of 17886 shares of the said company, and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no.2 from exercising any power as Director of the said company and from exercising any voting right in respect of any part of the said 17886 shares of the said company without consent of the plaintiff in writing. The petitioner being the plaintiff also filed an application in the said suit under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent no.2 from exercising any voting right in respect of any portion of the said 17886 equity shares of the said company in any general meeting of the said company and/or from transferring any portion of the said shares in any manner whatsoever without the consent of the petitioner. On November 17, 2011, Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), heard both sides and was pleased to pass an order of injunction restraining the respondent no.2 being the contemnor no.1 from using her voting right and transferring the shares in question in favour of the contemnor no.2 being the defendant No.1 of the said Title Suit till December 16, 2011. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said order of injunction was extended from time to time in presence of learned advocates of both sides and is in existence till the time of filing the application for contempt of court before this court

(3.) The annual general meeting of the said company for the year 2012-2013 was held on September 30, 2013 at the Board Room of Hotel Senator at 15, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017 and the contemnor nos.1 and 2 joined the meeting and introduced contemnor no.3 as their alleged proxy holder and the contemnor nos.1 and 2 demanded for exercise of the voting right of the contemnor no.1 in respect of her shareholding which is the subject matter of the said Title Suit and in respect of which the order of injunction was passed on November 17, 2011 and extended from time to time and is still subsisting. The contemnors were informed by the Chairman of the said meeting that the said voting right of the contemnor no.1 cannot be exercised, but the contemnor nos.2 and 3 forcefully attended the meeting and ultimately the contemnor no.1 along with contemnor no.2 had cast her vote on the ballot paper in violation of the order of injunction granted on November 17, 2011 by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). However, the Chairman of the meeting rejected those ballot papers on the ground that the shares were injuncted by the order of the court. The contemnor nos.1 and 2 served one letter on the petitioner through their advocates contending, inter alia, that the interim order of injunction was not extended after June 29, 2013. It is alleged that it is incorrect to state that the interim order of injunction was not extended after June 29, 2013, though by an administrative order Title Suit was transferred from the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Court of Learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Sealdah. The petitioner has alleged that the contemnor no.1 being the defendant no.2 of the Title Suit wilfully violated the order of injunction granted by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) by exercising her voting right in respect of the alleged shares in the annual general meeting of the company held on September 30, 2013. The petitioner has also alleged that the contemnor no.2 being the defendant no.1 of the Title Suit has aided and abated the contemnor no.1 in exercising her voting right in respect of the alleged shares in the annual general meeting of the company held on September 30, 2013 by deliberately and wilfully violating the order of injunction granted by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). The petitioner has also alleged that the contemnor no.3 has aided and abated the contemnor no.1 in participating in the annual general meeting of the company held on September 30, 2013 and in exercising her voting right in respect of the shares of the company as the alleged proxy of the contemnor nos.1 and 2 in violation of the order of injunction granted by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). The petitioner has also alleged that the contemnors have wilfully and deliberately violated the order of injunction granted by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) on November 17, 2011 in Title Suit No.168 of 2011 in attending the annual general meeting of the company held on September 30, 2013 and in exercising the alleged voting right of the contemnor no.1 along with contemnor no.2 in respect of the alleged shares of the company and by aiding and abating the contemnor no.1 in violating the order of injunction. The petitioner has prayed for invoking the power under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for imposition of punishment on the contemnors for wilful and deliberate violation of the order of injunction granted by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Title Suit No.168 of 2011.