Contempt requires deliberate disregard of court orders; good faith actions related to renovations do not constitute contempt.

1. The present contempt application has been filed on the allegation of wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated October 25, 2017 passed in CAN 6975 of 2017, filed in connection with FAT 391 of 2017, by a coordinate Bench of this Court. By the said order, the respondents in the appeal were restrained by an order of injunction from disturbing the possession of the appellant (present petitioner) in respect of the suit premises as well as the free ingress and egress of the appellant with regard to the said premises.

2. The suit premises is comprised of a jewellery shop housed within a hotel owned by the respondent no. 1, of which most of the alleged contemnors are directors.

3. The petitioner alleges that during subsistence of the said order of injunction and in the teeth of it, the electricity supply to the suit premises was disconnected by the alleged contemnors from November 14, 2024 till March 04, 2025 and thereafter from March 16, 2025 till March 21, 2025.

4. Despite the petitioner having written to the alleged contemnors about such disconnection, the alleged contemnors, citing the ongoing renovation work of the hotel, which is owned by the respondent no.1 in the appeal, failed to restore such electricity connection. Subsequently by a letter dated March 04, 2025, while expressing their inability to restore the electricity supply as it originally stood, the alleged contemnors gave out that they would restore two electricity points to the suit premises.

5. It is further alleged that not stopping there, the alleged contemnors issued a notice dated August 27, 2024 asking the petitioner to vacate the suit premises. In the said letter, the pendency of a suit for eviction at the behest of the respondents in the appeal was also mentioned. It was further stated that unless the petitioner shuts down its shop, run from the suit premises, during the period of renovation and/or refurbishment, there is a risk of safety and security not only for it but also its customers. The alleged contemnors gave out that they would not take any responsibility whatsoever if any damage of any nature was caused either to men or material inside the space or during ingress and egress to and from the said space of any nature whatsoever. It is argued that such act on the part of the alleged contemnors, being patently calculated to oust the petitioner from its possession of the suit property, was palpably contumacious.

6. Further pointing out to the affidavit-in-opposition filed to the contempt application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in derogation of the established practice of this Court, none of the alleged contemnors cared to file affidavit-in-opposition to the contempt application in their personal capacity but delegated the said job to some employee of the respondent no.1-company in the appeal. The said act itself, it is argued, shows the nonchalant attitude of the alleged contemnors.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites Rule 29 of the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975 to argue that in a contempt application, the respondent or the contemnor has to file an affidavit. Such affirmation cannot be relegated to some third party.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next cites Vineet Kumar Mathur vs. Union of India and others , reported at (1996) 1 SCC 119, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the alleged contemnor therein had no point in saying that the consent given in the said case was subject to orders passed by the Supreme Court