[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Sanjay Choudhary vs Dewki Nandan Choudhary on 16 February, 2026
1
OD-3 & 4
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CONTEMPT)
ORIGINAL SIDE
CC/27/2025
SANJAY CHOUDHARY
-VS-
DEWKI NANDAN CHOUDHARY
&
CC/65/2025
SANJAY CHOUDHARY
-VS-
DEWKI NANDAN CHOUDHARY
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date: 16th February, 2026.
Appearance :
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Sayantan Bose, Adv.
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Piryanka Gope, Adv.
... for the petitioner
Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Altamash Alim, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Biswas, Adv.
Mr. Rajashree Bhowmick, Adv.
... for defendant no.1.
1.
The petitioner has filed two contempt applications being
CC/27/2025 and CC/65/2025 on the allegation that the alleged
contemnor has violated the order passed by this Court dated 9 th
January, 2025. The petitioner submits that this Court has passed
ad-interim order in terms of prayers (a), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of
GA/1/2025. The petitioner has communicated the said order and
the order was duly received by the alleged contemnor but having the
knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court, the alleged
contemnor has issued a certificate under the heading 'To
Whomsoever it may concerned' dated 8 th January, 2025 which was
alleged to have been notarized on 10th January, 2025 wherein the
alleged contemnor has appointed Niranjan Dev Sharma, as
Vyavasthapak of Kanahaiya Lal Ramkumar Memorial Trust. In other
contempt application the petitioner alleged that the alleged
contemnor has violated the order passed by this Court dated 9 th
January, 2025 by verifying the e-filing of the Income Tax Return of
the trust on 29th January, 2025. The alleged contemnor has filed
affidavit-in-opposition as well as supplementary affidavit. In the
affidavit-in-opposition of CC/27/2025, the alleged contemnor has
stated that Niranjan Dev Sharma was appointed on 1 st January,
2025 by the trust as Vyavasthapak for proper maintenance of the
properties of the trust. It is further mentioned that the Niranjan Dev
Sharma was authorized by the trust for various acts on behalf of the
trust and in the absence of the alleged contemnor. On 8 th January,
2025 he has issued certificate in favour of Niranjan Dev Sharma. He
submits that the order passed by this Court was received by the
alleged contemnor on 13th January, 2025 and the certificate issued
by the alleged contemnor in favour of Niranjan Dev Sharma on 10 th
January, 2025 and as such the petitioner had no knowledge about
the order on or before 13th January, 2025, thus the alleged
contemnor has not violated the order passed by this Court.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed for
unconditional apology if the alleged contemnor has committed any
violation of the order dated 9th January, 2025.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the affidavit-in-
opposition at paragraph 19(a) the alleged contemnor stated that
Niranjan Dev Sharma was appointed on 1 st January, 2025 as
Vyavasthapak of the trust but there is no document is disclosed to
prove that the trust has appointed Shri Niranjan Dev Sharma as
Vyavasthapak on 1st January, 2025. He submits that alleged
contemnor had knowledge that this Court has passed an order and
only to save himself from the contempt proceeding had backdated
the document as 8th January, 2025 and 10th January, 2025.
4. The alleged contemnor also filed a supplementary affidavit and
disclosed whatsapp message of 10 th January, 2025 wherein it reveals
that the certificate which was executed by the alleged contemnor on
8th January, 2025 was forwarded on 10th January, 2025.
Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the respective
parties, perused the materials on record, this Court find that
admittedly the alleged contemnor had received the order passed by
this Court on 13th January, 2025. The document on the basis of
which the petitioner filed the contempt application is of 8 th January,
2025 and 10th January, 2025.
5. Thus, this Court did not find any materials on record that the alleged
contemnor has antedated the said document to save himself from
the contempt proceeding.
6. Accordingly, this Court did not find any willful and deliberate
violation of the order of this Court with respect to CC/27/2025 and
accordingly the same is dismissed.
7. As regards CC/65/2025, the alleged contemnor has verified the
income tax return on 29th January, 2025 after having knowledge of
the order passed by this Court dated 9th January, 2025. Counsel for
the alleged contemnor has submitted that the alleged contemnor
filed income tax return to the income tax department on 29 th
November, 2023 for the financial year 2023-24. After filing of the
return, the income tax department has made the demand on 20 th
December, 2024 and after receipt of the said demand from the
income tax department, the alleged contemnor has informed his
chartered accountant with regard to the same and had given proper
instruction to the chartered accountant and the chartered
accountant has taken appropriate steps and informed the
department that the trust is entitled to get back an amount of
Rs.31,56,930/- back and thus the chartered accountant by using
the digital signature of the alleged contemnor has submitted the
revised return to the income tax department. He submits that by
submitting the revised return to the income tax department, the
alleged contemnor has saved Rs.31,56,930/- of the trust. He
submits that the petitioner has not committed any contempt. The
document which the petitioner has relied upon is the digital
signature of the alleged contemnor which was used by chartered
accountant only to submit the revised return to the income tax
department as per querry raised by income tax department.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged
contemnor had the knowledge with regard to the interim order dated
9th January, 2025. He could have been filed the application before
this Court for modification and/or clarification of the order or to
obtain leave from this Court before authorizing the chartered
accountant to use his digital signature.
9. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties, though
the alleged contemnor has filed the income tax return in the month
of November, 2023 for the annual year 2023-24 but in the month of
December, 2024 the income tax department has raised querry on
20th December, 2024. The chartered accountant's of the alleged
contemnor has filed revised claim to the income tax department on
29th January, 2025 that is after the interim order passed by this
Court by using the digital signature of the alleged contemnor. The
alleged contemnor ought to have brought to the notice of this Court
and after taking leave from this Court ought to have used digital
signature with regard to the assets of the trust but the alleged
contemnor failed to take any leave from this Court. Thus the alleged
contemnor is directed to be cautioned in future.
10. CC/65/2025 is disposed of.
11. Rule, if any, issued against the alleged contemnor is discharged.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
mg
