Calcutta High Court
Electrosteel Castings Limited vs Smt. Vandana Yadav on 26 September, 2025
Author: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
OD-4
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Contempt)
(Commercial Division)
ORIGINAL SIDE
CC/84/2024
WITH WPO/192/2024
ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED
VS
SMT. VANDANA YADAV
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Date:26thSeptember, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Arif Ali, Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Srivastav, Adv.
..for the petitioner.
Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG.
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty.Adv.
Mr. Suddhadev Adak, Adv.
..for the WBIDCL
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. DebangshuDinda, Adv.
..for the alleged contemnors.
The Court:-Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that repeated
adjournments have been taken by the alleged contemnor on the ground of
pendency of an appeal against the order under contempt.
Such contention is controverted by learned counsel for the alleged
contemnor.
However, even the previous orders passed by this Court go on to indicate
that at least on seven prior occasions, adjournmentshave been sought by the
alleged contemnor on the ground of pendency of the appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner hands over a server copy of an order
dated September 9, 2025 whereby APOT/5/2025,the appeal preferred against
the order under contempt, was dismissed for default.
Learned counsel for the alleged contemnor, however, seeks to rely on the
revocation of West Bengal Incentive Scheme and Obligations in the nature of
Grants and Incentive Act, 2025, which was apparently published and notified
in the Official Gazette on April 2, 2025,arguing that in terms of Section 4
thereof, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment,
arbitral award, decree, order or direction of any authority, Court or tribunal,
the State Government and/or its Authorized Agents shall no longer have any
past, present or future liabilities or obligations under the West Bengal Incentive
Schemes and/or under any Grants and Obligations, of any nature whatsoever,
or for any Incentive under any contract or agreement or promises or any law of
the State Legislature.
It is submitted that in view of the operation of Section 4(1) of the 2025
Act, the contempt petition has been rendered infructuous, since the parent
order is no longer operative, having been overridden by the provisions of the
2025 Act, thereby alleviating the alleged contemnor of the liabilities under the
said order.
The court will be failing its duty if it does not note the patently
recalcitrant attitude of the alleged contemnor.
After having sought adjournment on numerous occasions, from prior to
the enactment of the 2025 Act till much thereafter, without setting up the 2025
Act as a defence to the contempt, at this belated stage, the alleged contemnor
seeks to rely on a statute which has been promulgated on April 2, 2025, that is
much subsequently after the order under contempt was passed and the
contempt proceeding was even initiated.
The promulgation of the said Act was never urged as a defence in the
contempt application, although Rule was issued in connection with the
contempt application and a show-cause was filed in pursuance thereto.
Rather, the common refrain in all the adjournment prayers of the alleged
contemnor has been till date that an appeal was pending.
However, the said appeal itself was dismissed for default, thereby
bringing to light the deliberate ploy of the alleged contemnor to protract the
litigation under one pretext or the other.
Even if the 2025 Act has been enacted with effect from April 2, 2025,
Section 4(1)of which seeks to erase the effect of past orders of any Court, it is
well-settled that within the contemplation of the General Clauses Act, such
retrospective effect cannot be given to accrued rights under an order of Court.
It is to be remembered that the contempt jurisdiction is not restricted by
the Contempt of Courts Act but flows from the powers of a Court of records/
Constitutional Court under section 215 of the Constitution of India and is an
inherent power of the Court to ensure that the Rule of Law is maintained.
Even if the 2025 Act is taken into account, the same cannot nullify the
effect of a contempt application retrospectively.
The contempt proceeding was already initiated before the 2025 Act came
into force.Learned counsel for the alleged contemnor submits that the vires of
the said Act has been challenged in several proceedings. However, since the
challenges are still pending, it would be premature for this court, sitting in
contempt jurisdiction, to dwellupon the Constitutionality or legality of the
retrospective effect given by the said Act.
Even if the order in question was merely at that stage of implementation
and no contempt had already been filed, it might still have been possible to
arguethat the said order has been rendered toothless by the 2025 Act.
However, once the order culminated and ripened into a contempt
proceeding, it is between the alleged contemnor and the Court and the alleged
contemnor is to show as to what has prevented the alleged contemnor from
complying with the order passed much earlier than the promulgation of the
2025 Act, at least between the period from passing of the parent order and the
enactment of the 2025 statute.Hence, even if the 2025 Act or its vireswere to be
ultimately upheld by Courts, fact remains that the act of deliberate and willful
violation of the order of this Court, at least prior to the 2025 Act coming into
effect on April 2, 2025, cannot be mitigated, since the 2025 Act had not been
enacted during such period.
The only ground on which the contempt application has been protracted
for so long is the numerous adjournments sought by the alleged contemnor on
the ground of pendency of the appeal against the parent order, which ground
has also been proved to be a cover-up and moonshine in view of the lack of
seriousness of the appellants therein in pursuing the appeal, since they were
not even serious enough to conduct the same diligently despite the guillotine of
contempt hanging over the alleged contemnor's head, as elicited by the
dismissal of the appeal for default.
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason
why penal action should not be taken against the alleged contemnor.
Accordingly, the alleged contemnor shall remain present in Court personally on
October 31, 2025 at10.30 am, when the matter shall next be listed for passing
appropriate orders.
(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
Arsad
