Adhunik Crop Care Private Limited vs. Sunil S. Katiyar

Held

The Court noted the submissions made by both parties. The petitioner, in light of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, chose not to press the contempt petition further. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the contempt petition. The Court explicitly stated that the respondents would be bound by their recorded statement. It was made clear that any violation of this statement would be viewed very seriously if brought to the notice of the Court. The Court did not make any finding on the contempt itself, as the petition was not pressed. The operative direction was to dispose of the contempt petition as not pressed, with a clear warning regarding future compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, Adhunik Crop Care Private Limited, filed a contempt petition alleging wilful violation of a previous High Court order dated December 19, 2019, passed in CWP-28353-2018. This prior order had directed the respondents to refund in cash 50% of the value of goods lying in the petitioner's factory premises within one month. The petitioner contended that this period had elapsed, and the respondents had intentionally failed to comply with the court's directions. The respondent, represented by the State counsel, stated that they intended to file a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the order of December 19, 2019. They further submitted that if an interim order was not obtained within six weeks, the original order would be implemented.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have wilfully and intentionally violated the order dated December 19, 2019, passed by this Court in CWP-28353-2018, thereby committing contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the respondents had failed to comply with the clear directions of the Court to refund 50% of the value of goods within the stipulated one-month period, despite the time having elapsed. This non-compliance was contended to be wilful and intentional, making the respondents liable for contempt. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, through the State counsel, stated that they had decided to file an LPA against the order dated December 19, 2019. They requested a period of six weeks to obtain an interim order in their favour. They further assured that if no interim order was secured, the original order would be implemented in letter and spirit. The respondent did not explicitly argue against the contempt charge but presented their intention to challenge the underlying order and sought time.