Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor vs. Tomar Enterprises
Facts
The petitioners, Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor and Kapsun Resources Corporation, filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of an order dated February 26, 2021, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in a temporary injunction application. This order was further extended on March 22, 2021. The respondents are numerous entities and individuals, including Tomar Enterprises and Raj Cooling System Private Limited. The contempt petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur.
Held
The Court held that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the alleged violation of the order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction either under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning is that a specific statutory remedy exists within the CPC for such violations, making the contempt petition before the High Court unnecessary and not the preferred course of action. The ratio decidendi is that when a specific and effective remedy is available under a statute for a particular grievance, the High Court may decline to exercise its extraordinary or discretionary jurisdiction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of initiating contempt proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for alleged violation of an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners have approached the High Court for contempt, implying they believe this is the appropriate forum and procedure for addressing the alleged willful disobedience of the lower court's injunction orders. Revenue/State's Argument: Not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, Article 215 of the Constitution of India, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[2023:RJ-JP:14255] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 281/2021 In Other Original Civil Suit No.01/2021
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor, Aged About 48 Years, Male, Having Present Address At A-11, Savita Apartment Nr. Judgees Bungalow, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad,
Kapsun Resources Corporation, A Proprietorship Concern Through Its Proprietor Meeta Ashok Kapoor, Through Her Authorized Person Shri Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor (Petitioner No.1) Having Address At Shed No. 5, Raj Estate, B/h. Vallabh Dining Hall Sarkhej-Sanand Cross Road, Sakkhej, Ahmedabad-382210 ----Petitioners Versus
Tomar Enterprises, Having Address At 9, Jayanti Market, M.i. Road, Jaipur-2376256. 2. Raj Cooling System Private Limited, Cin - U31904Gj2017Ptc097755 Gstin/uin No. 24Aaicr3608N1Z4 A Company Registered Under Companies Act, 1956 Through Its Director Non-Petitioner No. 4 Having Its Address At - Block No. 70P, Unit 10, Resurvey No. 923, Crystal Indus Logistic Park, Nh 8Th Bhayla Village, Nr. Roselab Pharma, Nh 8Th Kerala Gidc, Bawla, Ahmedabad - 382220. Also Having Address At Plot No. 58, Survey No. 31, B/h Show Room, Vavdi, Rajkot.
Raj Cooling World Private L
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.