Bombay High Court
The Hongkong And Shanghai Banking ... vs The Union Of India on 12 January, 2024
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
928-conpwl 350-24 in wp 3698-23.odt
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (L.) NO. 350 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3698 OF 2023
The Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
__________
Mr. Abhishek Rastogi with Mr. Pratyushprava Saha, Ms. Akshita Shetty
for Petitioner.
Mr. M. P. Sharma with Ms. Mamta Omle for Respondent.
__________
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 12, 2024.
P.C.:
1. We have heard Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner on
the contempt petition.
2. The contempt alleged is of the judgment and order dated 08
November, 2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court of which
one of us (G. S. Kulkarni, J.) was a member on the aforesaid writ petition,
whereby in terms of paragraph 35, the Court had allowed the writ petition
filed by the petitioner in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and had
directed that the refund of the amount be granted to the petitioner as
ordered along with applicable interest within a period of four weeks from
-------------------------
12 January, 2024
928-conpwl 350-24 in wp 3698-23.odt
the day a copy of the said order was made available to the parties. Copy of
the order was made available on 23 November, 2023. The respondents/
contemnors were served with the copy of the order by the petitioner on 27
November, 2023. The case of the petitioner is that within the time period
of four weeks as granted by this Court, the order ought to have been
implemented. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1, Mr. Rastogi submits
that the respondents can be no exception in not complying with the orders
passed by this Court. He has also drawn our attention to the letter dated
21 December, 2023 of the Assistant Commissioner Shri. Sudhakar
Khobragade as addressed to the petitioner wherein he records that as
informed by the legal Section, the Commissioner has not accepted the
judgment and order dated 08 November, 2023 passed by this Court and
has decided to challenge the same. It is Mr. Rastogi's contention that the
language of the concerned officer in the said letter itself shows the dis-
regard of the said officer to the orders passed by this Court. He also
submits that there is no application filed on behalf of the respondents
seeking extension of time to comply with the orders for any reason as may
be permissible in law. He accordingly submits that this is a clear case
where the Court ought to exercise contempt jurisdiction and proceed to
initiate an appropriate action against the respondents under the contempt
1 (2012) 1 SCC 273
-------------------------
12 January, 2024
928-conpwl 350-24 in wp 3698-23.odt
of Courts Act.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondents, on instructions, states that the Department is in the process
of filing a Special Leave Petition which is so far not filed. He would not
dispute that the orders passed by this Court have thus become binding. It
is also not in dispute that no application for extension of time as granted
by this Court has been filed.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that a notice
before admission be issued to the respondents/contemnors, as to why the
contempt petition be not admitted. Let a reply affidavit, if any pre-
admission, be placed on record within a period of two weeks from today.
Let a copy of the reply affidavit be served on the advocate for the
petitioner well in advance.
5. Stand over to 25 January, 2024.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]
-------------------------
12 January, 2024
