OD-2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CONTEMPT)

ORIGINAL SIDE CC/57/2012 IA NO.GA/4/2024 GA/6/2024 GA/9/2025 SATISH VISHANJI FUTNANI -Versus-

ARUL MADHUSUDHAN FUTNANI AND ORS.

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice DebangsuBasak -And-

The Hon’ble Justice Md. ShabbarRashidi For the Petitioner : Mr. RanjanBachawat, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Prabhakar Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Mini Agarwal, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. TarunJyotiTewari, Sr. Adv.

Mr. VenkateshMohanraj, Adv.

Mr. Sandip Kumar De, Adv.

Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Adv.

For the Respondent :Mr. Manjit Singh, Sr. Adv.

Nos.2-4 Mr. V. T. Narendran, Adv.

Mr. SoujanyoPattanayak, Adv.

HEARD ON : 07.12.2023, 09.01.2024, 13.02.2024, 05.03.2024, 12.03.2024, 18.04.2024, 13.06.2024, 27.06.2024, 16.07.2024, 23.07.2024, 30.07.2024, 20.08.2024, 22.08.2024, 29.08.2024, 19.09.2024, 19.11.2024, 17.12.2024.14.01.2025, 21.01.2025, 28.01.2025, 25.02.2025, 27.03.2025.

DELIVERED ON :10.04.2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. In this contempt rule, petitioner/informant alleges that the respondents violated the order dated June 13, 2004 passed in CC/113/2004 and CC/114/2004.

2. Co-ordinate Bench, by an order dated June 2, 2012 called upon the respondents to show cause as to why criminal contempt proceeding should not be initiated as against them. In response thereto, the respondents filed affidavits termed as ‘representations.’

3. The representations of the respondents, in the form of affidavits, were considered and by a judgment and order dated August 1, 2024, we issued a criminal contempt Rule as against the respondents. Such Rule was made returnable on August 20, 2024.

4. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was carried against the judgment and order dated August 1, 2024 which was dismissed as withdrawn on August 14, 2024.

5. The order dated August 14, 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition directed against the judgment and order dated August 1, 2024 is as follows:

“Mr. C. A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, upon instructions, seeks permission to withdraw this petition leaving it open for the petitioner to raise all contentions before the High Court as are available to him under law.

Permission granted.

The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.”

6. Subsequent thereto, a number of applications were filed by the respondent No.1 praying for several reliefs. One of the applications was for recusal of this Court from hearing the contempt Rule, being IA NO. GA/5/2024.

7. Such application being IA No.GA/5/2024 was disposed of by a judgment and order dated January 21, 2025. We declined to accept such request of the respondent No. 1.

8. Special Leave Petition carried against the judgment and order dated January 21, 2025 was withdrawn at the instance of the respondent No.1.

9. Subsequent thereto, few more applications were filed by the respondent No.1 including one which was disposed of on April 8, 2025.

10. The respondents filed affidavits in the contempt Rule subsequent to our judgment and order dated August 1, 2024. That apart, a number of applications were filed by the respondent No.1 from time to time.

11. Contempt Rule was heard and hearing thereof was concluded on March 25, 2025.Even thereafter another application was filed by the respondent No. 1.

12. On April 8, 2025 while disposing of the last of the applications by the respondent No.1, we directed all the respondents to be personally present in Court today for the purpose of the disposal of the contempt Rule.

13. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents identifies their respective clients to be present in Court physically today.

14. The contentions of the petitioner/informant are as follows: i.) Respondents interfered with the possession of the Joint Receivers over diverse immovable properties and executed a sale deed dated January 27, 2012 in violation of the subsisting orders.

ii.) Respondents, despite several orders, continued to repeatedly interfere with the posses