Vamscorp (India) Ltd. Vs. Borendra Nath Mookerjee and ors.

Vamscorp (India) Ltd. vs Borendra Nath Mookerjee and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 02, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/906293

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/906293
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: I . P. Mukerji, J.
Decided On: Aug 02, 2010
Case Number: CC No.119 of 2010 ; AP No.417 of 2009
Subject: Contempt of Court

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Contempt of Court

Key legal issue: Contempt of Court

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vamscorp (India) Ltd.

Advocate Mr. Anindya Mitra Sr. ; Mr. Abhrajit Mitra ; Ms. Pooja Das Chowdhury ; Ms. Radhika Singh ; Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury ; Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, ; Mr. Ranjan Deb Sr. ; Mr. Kallol Bose Advs.

Respondent

Borendra Nath Mookerjee and ors.

Excerpt

.....not want to proceed further against the police. further it is a civil dispute. additionally mr. kallal bose has submitted that the entire action of the police is not wilful or deliberate and prays for unqualified apology. when the petitioner does not want to proceed against the alleged principal offender, i.e. the police i do not know how this proceedings can be continued against the alleged principal offender in the second degree or third degree being the other respondents. of course, it is trite that contempt is an action between the court and the alleged contemnor. the petitioners not wanting to proceed does not absolve the alleged contemnors. but to adjudicate the issue, further evidence is required. in this private dispute, when the petitioner does not proceed, i do not want to embark on this exercise. i only observe that this kind of action should not be repeated as it causes considerable embarrassment to the court apart from lowering its dignity in the eyes of the public. with these observations, this contempt application is dismissed. all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

Full Judgment

The Court: While a civil action was pending between the parties the police had initiated some action which was not appreciated by me, prima facie. By my order dated 26th July, 2010 I had called for an explanation.

The police authorities are represented by counsel. But it is represented to me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that his client is not desirous of proceeding with this contempt application against the police. Contempt proceedings are like quasi-criminal proceedings. The alleged contemnors are like accused in a criminal proceeding. I find from the letter of the alleged contemnor no.1, at page 53 of the contempt petition that he cannot be called an alleged principal offender in this contempt proceeding.

In his letter at page 53 he had just mentioned that there was violation of the status quo order dated 21st June, 2010 and requested the police to take necessary action. Prima facie, upon receipt of this request, which shows clear mention of a status quo order of the Court, the police without recourse to the Court, without consulting the Receivers appointed by the Court, straightaway initiated action and criminal prosecution. This is, prima facie, interference with the administration of justice.

The petitioner does not want to proceed further against the police. Further it is a civil dispute. Additionally Mr. Kallal Bose has submitted that the entire action of the police is not wilful or deliberate and prays for unqualified apology. When the petitioner does not want to proceed against the alleged principal offender, i.e. the police I do not know how this proceedings can be continued against the alleged principal offender in the second degree or third degree being the other respondents. Of course, it is trite that contempt is an action between the Court and the alleged contemnor.

The petitioners not wanting to proceed does not absolve the alleged contemnors. But to adjudicate the issue, further evidence is required. In this private dispute, when the petitioner does not proceed, I do not want to embark on this exercise. I only observe that this kind of action should not be repeated as it causes considerable embarrassment to the Court apart from lowering its dignity in the eyes of the public. With these observations, this contempt application is dismissed.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2010 Same Parties Vamscorp (India) Ltd. vs Borendra Nath Mookerjee and ors. Same Subject Contempt of Court Same Judge I . P. Mukerji, J.