Satish Vishanji Futnani vs Arul Madhusudhan Futnani And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 962 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Satish Vishanji Futnani vs Arul Madhusudhan Futnani And Ors on 28 January, 2025

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

OD -7

                           ORDER SHEET

                            CC/57/2012
                          IA GA 4 OF 2024
                          IA GA 6 OF 2024
                          IA GA 8 OF 2025
                          IA GA 9 OF 2025
                         IA GA 11 OF 2025
                         IA GA 12 OF 2025
                         IA GA 13 OF 2025
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CONTEMPT)
                            ORIGINAL SIDE

                    SATISH VISHANJI FUTNANI
                               VS
              ARUL MADHUSUDHAN FUTNANI AND ORS.


    BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK

AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI Date : 28th January, 2025.

Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Prabhakar Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Mini Agarwal, Adv.

...For the petitioner

Mr. Venkatesh Mohan Raj, Adv.

Mr. Sandip Kumar De, Adv.

...For contemner no. 1

Mr. V.T. Narendran, Adv.

Mr. Sumit Biswas, Adv.

...For contemner nos. 2 to 4

The Court: IA GA 11 of 2024 is an application at the behest of the

contemnor no. 1 praying for adjournment of the contempt petition for a period

of four weeks in view of a Special Leave Petition being filed directed against the

judgment and order dated January 21, 2025.

Petitioner, contemnor nos. 2, 3 and 4 are also represented. Contemnors

nos. 2, 3 and 4 support the prayer of the contemnor no. 1.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner points out that the prayer

for stay of the judgment and order dated January 21, 2025 was rejected.

It is submitted on behalf of the contemnor no. 1, who filed IA GA 11 of

2025, that the Special Leave Petition directed against the judgment and order

dated January 21, 2025, although was given a diary number, certified copy of

the judgment and order dated January 21, 2025 was not made available to the

contemnor no. 1, despite application for certified copy for the same being made.

Department informs the Court that the contemnor no. 1 subsequent to

filing of the requisition of the certified copy took no further steps.

Be that as it may, it would be appropriate to adjourn the contempt

petition for a period of four weeks as prayed for in IA GA 11 of 2025.

IA GA 11 of 2025 is disposed of.

List the contempt petition along with all connected applications four

weeks hence.

Since the contempt petition is pending from 2012, parties are requested

not to embarrass the Court with any prayer for adjournment on that date.

Since we did not call upon the parties to file affidavits, allegations made

in the application are deemed to be denied.

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)

(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)

TR/