[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vivek Shyam Kishore vs Central Institute Of Fisheries ... on 26 February, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
904. IA 2980-21 in EXA 2454-25 @SMCN 1-26.doc
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2980 OF 2021
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 2454 OF 2025
Vivek Shyam Kishore ...Applicant
V/s.
Central Institute of Fisheries Education ...Respondent
WITH
SUO MOTO CONTEMPT NOTICE NO. 1 OF 2026
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2980 OF 2021
Mr. Hasmit Trivedi, through VC with Ms. Niharika Ahirekar i/b Praxis
Legal for the Applicant.
Ms. Pavitra Manesh for the Respondent.
Dr. N. P. Sahu, Director of the Respondent-Institute present.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 26th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :
1. When the matter is called out, Mr. Trivedi, learned Counsel
appears for the Applicant and submits that pursuant to the order dated
21st January, 2026, the decretal amount along with interest has been
deposited in the Court within the time granted and this Court may
permit not only withdrawal of the amount deposited in this Court, but
also the execution proceedings as well as the Interim Application, as an
undertaking has been given on 20 th February, 2026 before the Court
Nikita Gadgil 1/6
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 21:31:53 :::
904. IA 2980-21 in EXA 2454-25 @SMCN 1-26.doc
taking up arbitration matters that the execution proceedings would be
withdrawn upon withdrawal of the decretal amount along with accrued
interest.
2. Ms. Manesh, learned Counsel appears for the Respondent-
Central Institute of Fisheries Education and also surprisingly for the
Contemnor viz. the Director of the Respondent, Dr. N. P. Sahu, in the
show cause notice that has been issued by this Court on 21 st January,
2026 and tenders across the bar an affidavit of apology dated 23 rd
February, 2026 of Dr. N. P. Sahu, also submitting that the Contemnor is
present before this Court and tenders an unconditional and unqualified
apology.
3. A perusal of the affidavit of apology, which does not appear to be
an explanation to the show cause notice but a proposal to settle not
only with the Applicant but also the contempt matter, reiterates what
had already been recorded and rejected in the order dated 21 st January,
2026 noting the breach by the Contemnor-Director and issuing the
contempt notice. Once again the very reason that because there is a
direction of the Head Office to attend the State level workshop on
developing an action plan for researchable issues emerging from Viksit
Krishi Sankalp Abhiyan 2025 for which the Contemnor was called to
Nikita Gadgil 2/6
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 21:31:53 :::
904. IA 2980-21 in EXA 2454-25 @SMCN 1-26.doc
co-chair the program, just another reason is sought to be supplied that
the undertaking was not complied, that it is after taking legal opinion
from the Advocate a decision regarding attending the said program was
made after an assurance was received from the earlier Advocate that
the said conference can be attended after signing the exemption
application. There are no details of the communication with the said
Advocate nor is the opinion sought made available to this Court. There
is no evidence of what action has been taken against the earlier
Advocate for furnishing such brazen and illegal advice but once again it
has been stated that non-appearance was not intentional. It has been
recorded in the order dated 21 st January, 2026, that there was no
exemption application filed in this Court but something tendered across
the bar and which ought to have been filed before the date of hearing
and despite that once again facts are sought to be twisted only to
wriggle out of the consequences of contempt.
4. It has been further stated in the said affidavit that the amount of
Rs. 36,68,409/- inclusive of interest as per award has been deposited in
this Court and that to put an end to the entire dispute an Interim
Application as well as an Arbitration Petition, which was rejected for
non-removal of the office objections, has been withdrawn on 20 th
Nikita Gadgil 3/6
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 21:31:53 :::
904. IA 2980-21 in EXA 2454-25 @SMCN 1-26.doc
February, 2026 and that the Respondent has also given no objection to
the Applicant to withdraw the entire amount.
5. This kind of approach, in my view, is not acceptable and ought
not to be accepted by any Court. Putting an end to the dispute for
payment of outstandings under an award is entirely different from
committing breach of the undertakings given to the Court or orders
passed by the Court. The commercial dispute may have been settled
between the two parties but the contempt is yet to be purged by the
Contemnor-Director of the Respondent. Merely repeatedly saying in the
affidavit that there was no intention of breaching the order or merely
stating that an unconditional and unqualified apology is being tendered
would not, in my view, serve in maintaining the majesty of this
Institution.
6. It is very surprising to know that in paragraph 2 of the said
affidavit the unconditional and unqualified apology is being tendered
on behalf of the Director and his Institution, as if he is the owner of the
Institution. It is the people who work in the Institution are in contempt
not the Institution. No further elaboration on this is required for the
moment.
Nikita Gadgil 4/6
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2026 21:31:53 :::
904. IA 2980-21 in EXA 2454-25 @SMCN 1-26.doc
7. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Director is far from
satisfactory to convince this Court to come to a conclusion that the
contempt has been purged. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-
ORDER
(i) Let the Applicant withdraw the amount deposited in this Court
by the Respondent and the Prothonotary & Senior Master release the
amount along with accrued interest after due verification within a
period of four weeks.
(ii) The Contemnor is given one last opportunity to show cause by
establishing before this Court as to why he should not be punished with
maximum punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for
deliberate breach of the undertaking given to this Court with copy to
the other side.
(iii) Let the response, if any, to the affidavit(s) filed on behalf of the
Contemnor be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
8. List on 1st April, 2026.
9. Let the Contemnor viz. Director of the Respondent, Dr. N. P.
Sahu, remain present in the Court on the next date.
904. IA 2980-21 in EXA 2454-25 @SMCN 1-26.doc
10. This Court will consider the application to withdraw the
proceedings on the next date.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
