[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Anr vs Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills on 8 January, 2026
OD- 1
CC/45/2018
IN ACO/125/2013
APO/210/2013
IA No.GA/2/2023
GA/3/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Civil Jurisdiction (Contempt)
ORIGINAL SIDE
MAHESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL AND
ANR.
-VERSUS-
SHREE HANUMAN COTTON MILLS
LIMITED AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Date : 8th January, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debdutt Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Ishaan Saha, Adv.
Mr. Kaushik Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Rashmita Sen, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Andolan Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Bagaria, Adv.
...for the respondent/ applicant in GA/2/2023.
The Court: The contempt application has been filed alleging violation of
the orders dated September 11, 2013 and December 2, 2013 passed in
APO/210/2013.
The relevant extract of the order dated 11 th September, 2013 is as follows:
"At this stage, it is pointed out that the appellant and the said
respondent no.5 are further contemplating to make construction
over the land of the company. This Court finds that the appellant
and the respondent no.5 cannot continue with the construction work
as by that time the appeal is disposed of, the position might become
irreversible. This Court, therefore, restrained the appellant and the
said respondent no.5 from making "any further construction" over
the land belonging to the Hanuman Cotton Mills Limited in any
manner whatsoever till the disposal of this application.
To obviate any future application this Court feels that it would
be appropriate to appoint a Special Officer to make an inspection
and report to this Court as to the exact nature of the construction
already done over the land of said company."
The said order also records as follows:
"This is an appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act,
1956 against an order dated 14th May, 2013 passed by the Company
Law Board....... The Company Law Board passed an order of status
quo in respect of the assets of the company which continued until
further order.
* * * *** ***
It appears from the annexure to the application that the
undertaking was recorded by the Company Law Board to the effect
that the said Welcast would remove the construction undertaken or
to be undertaken if done on the teeth of the order of status quo.
The Company Law Board while disposing of the application
finally held that the aforesaid constructions are made in violation of
the said order of status quo dated 13th July, 2009 and directed
demolition and/or removal thereof."
The order of which violation is alleged is thus regarding "further
construction over the land" as on 11th September, 2013. Thus, in the present
contempt application it is to be ascertained as to whether any "further construction"
has been made by the alleged contemnor on and from 11 th September, 2013, in
alleged violation of the Court's order and the same is to be seen from the Special
Officer's reports filed from time to time.
The defence of the alleged contemnor in their affidavit and written notes
is as follows:
"The respondents had never wilfully and deliberately violated
the order of 11th September, 2013. They were under the bonafide
impression that the temporary structures/sheds which were made in
the unusual course of business had not been prohibited by the said
order. Immediately after the Contempt Rule was issued i.e., when
this Hon'ble Court took a prima facie view on violation of the said
order, the respondents removed the new structures. In fact, the
respondents removed all the new structures as was indicated in the
Special Officers Report dated 10th February, 2023 even though the
same extended to over 17,000 sq.ft. and more than that what the
respondents had themselves initially assessed and stated in their
earlier affidavit. The respondents had also tendered unconditional
apology to this Hon'ble Court for the aforesaid acts and beseech this
Hon'ble Court to be so kind and generous as to accept such apology."
Several judgments have been relied upon by both sides in support of their
respective cases.
The order dated 3rd February, 2023 for demolition passed by the High
Court was modified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal of 2023, SLP (Civil)
No.2768 of 2023 to the following extent :
"8. To balance the equities, the impugned order dated 3.2,2023
in our considered opinion, would require modification to the
following extent:-
a) The Special Officer should complete the exercise as was ordered
by the High Court on 03.02.2023 and then furnish his report to the
Court;
b) the Court would then facilitate the appellants herein to give their
response to the report of the Special Officer; and
c) thereafter, the Court would take a decision on demolition of the
structure, depending upon the report that is furnished by the Special
Officer."
The first report filed by the Special Officer after the order dated 11 th
September, 2013 is dated 3rd October, 2013 and notes the presence of the following
construction:-
"5. At the entrance of the said factory, there is a sign board which
reads "WELCAST PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PHULESWAR,
ULUBERIA, HOWRAH". On the entrance gate it is written
"WELCAST". See photograph marked D-1. The entire factory is
surrounded by a high boundary wall.
6. As one enters the factory through the gate shown in D-1, on the
right hand side there is a security guard room, a cycle shed and a long
shed as would appear from the photograph marked D-2.
7. Just beside long shed, a portion of land has been surrounded by
a three feet wall which has a temple within as would appear from the
photograph marked D-3.
8. On the left hand side of the entrance gate, there is a weigh
bridge which is shown in the photograph marked D-4.
9. Almost in the middle of the land there is a factory shed. On
the top of such factory shed it is written "WELCAST", as would appear
from the photographs marked D-5 and D-6.
10. The Special Officer was taken behind the factory shed,
photographs of the factory shed from behind are marked D-7 and D-8.
11. There is an office room at the back of the factory land which
would appear from the photograph marked D-9. There are other
adjoining rooms as would appear from the photograph D-9.
12. Just beside the office room being D-9, there is another
construction which the Special Officer has been informed by the
appellants was being used as store room. Photograph of the same is
marked D-10.
13. D-11 is a toilet on the right hand side of the entrance gate
being D-1.
14. There are other constructions on the land. These are mostly
on the left side as one enters from the entrance gate being D-1. The
Special Officer has taken photographs of the same. They are serially
marked as D-12, D-13, D-14 and D-15."
The second report is dated 10th February, 2023, the relevant part of the
report is as follows:
"Since there was no order of stay of the order dated 3rd
February, 2023, the Special Officer expressed his inability to adhere
to such request and proceeded to commence inspection of the subject
structures. It can be found from a plain comparison of the
photographs taken by the Special Officer on 4th February, 2023 with
the photographs forming part of the previous report of the Special
Officer that there have been constructions made subsequent to the
previous visit of the Special Officer. The Special Officer has taken
photographs of the newly constructed shed as well as other building
materials lying at the said space.
*** *** ***
With the assistance of the surveyor Mr. Sandip Bijoli, Uluberia
Municipality and his staff, he could more or less ascertain a newly
constructed portion upon comparing the same with the photographs
affixed to the previous report of the Special Officer. Mr. Bijoli had
prepared a rough sketch of the newly constructed sheds along with
measurements.
*** *** ***
Dispute arose as to the extent to which such constructions
needs to be demolished. According to the contemnors, the order
dated 3rd February, 2023 directs the Special Officer to identify
15,000 sq. ft. of factory shed as stated and recorded in the order
dated 16th December, 2022 and demolish the same. On the other
hand, Mr. Mahesh Kejriwal representing the petitioners was of the
view that the purport of the order was to demolish everything that
was newly constructed subsequent to the order dated 11th
September, 2013. The rival contentions of the parties have been
duly recorded in the Minutes of the Special Officer, held at the
location.
*** *** ***
At about 3 O' clock, a letter was served by the Advocate of the
respondents, informing the Special Officer that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has granted an interim suspension of the order dated 3rd
February, 2023 and directed notice to be issued in the matter. The
Special Officer was thus requested, after service of the said order,
not to proceed with the work of inspection and demolition. A server
copy of the order dated 4th February, 2023 was also served on the
Special Officer."
The third report is dated 1st August, 2023 and the relevant part of the
report is as follows:
"8. The Uluberia Municipality was notified and Mr. Sandip
Bijoli, was present at the site along with one, Mr. Ashoke Kumar
Sarkar, Head Estimator from Uluberia Municipality. After considering
the report of the Special Officer prepared on 3rd October, 2013, the
partial sketch prepared by Mr. Bijoli on the last visit of the Special
Officer on 4th February, 2023 and after measurements recorded in
consultation with the Special Officer, a hand drawn sketch was
prepared by Mr. Bijoli and Mr. Sarkar under the supervision of the
Special Officer. A copy of the said sketch map duly signed by the
Special Officer and Mr. Sarkar and Mr. Bijoli, indicating the existing
structure in terms of the report of October, 2013 and the newly
constructed sheds constructed after 2013, has been indicated in the
said sketch. The said sketch map also shows the exact measurements
of the new constructions.
A copy of the said sketch map identifying the structures
constructed after 3rd October, 2013 is annexed hereto and marked with
the letter "C".
The final report is dated 31st August, 2023, an extract from the same is as
follows:
1. By an order dated August 22, 2023 passed by His Lordship the
Hon'ble Justice Harish Tandon in C.C. No. 45 of 2018; 1. A. No. G.A. 2
of 2023 (Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal & Anr. -Vs.-Shree Hanuman Cotton
Mills & Ors.), the Special Officer was directed to-
"Re-visit the site and submit a report whether the alleged
contemnors have been able to dismantle the structure which
has been shown in the sketch map annexed to the last report
submitted before this court and the extent thereof."
* * * * * * * * *
6. Upon entering the factory premises, the Special Officer found that
portions of the factory shed, shown in the sketch map annexed to the
previous report of the Special Officer dated August 1, 2023, have been
dismantled.
7. Photographs of the area from where the structures have been
dismantled, subsequent to the last visit of the Special Officer, have
been taken under the instructions of the my sketch map Special
Officer. L Officer. ...
8. However, it was pointed out by Mr. Kaushik Banerjee, Advocate
that although the factory shed and the iron columns supporting such
sheds have been removed but the R.C.C. foundations are still existing.
Such objection has been recorded in the minutes.
9. Upon physical measurement of the area from where the structures
have been removed/dismantled, it will appear that the factory shed
along with the iron columns covering an area of 135 feet x 85 feet
shown in the North West corner of the sketch map annexed to the
previous report has been dismantled.
10. Similarly, the factory shed covering an area of 100 feet x 54 feet
shown in the West side of the sketch map annexed to the previous
report has also been dismantled.
*** *** ***
12. Mr. Bijoli and Mr. Sarkar have physically assisted the Special
Officer in measurement of the area and have confirmed in the minutes
held at the locale that the sheds have been removed from two areas
measuring 135 feet x 85 feet and 100 feet x 54 feet."
The violations alleged by the petitioners herein are as follows:
"41. A bare perusal and comparison between the status of the
contemnor no.5 in 2013 reflected from the report and photographs
taken by the Learned Special Officer, with that of the present
literature of the contemnor no.5, will clearly show that the contemnors
have wilfully, deliberately and contumaciously acted in violation of the
orders dated September 11, 2013 and December 2, 2013 passed in
A.P.O. No.210 of 2013 as under:-
i) In spite of the orders dated September 11, 2013 and
December 2, 2013, the contemnors proceeded to make
further constructions at the said factory premises;
ii) In spite of the orders dated September 11, 2013 and
December 2, 2013, the contemnors have deliberately,
wilfully and contumaciously carried on manufacturing
business at the said premises on the basis of new
constructions made by them;
iii) In spite of the orders of September 11, 2013 and
December 2, 2013, restraining the appellants and the
respondent no.5 from making further construction over
the land in any manner whatsoever till disposal of the
application, they have wilfully, deliberately and
contumaciously have violated the said orders;
iv) In spite of the orders dated September 11, 2013 and
December 2, 2013, the contemnors have proceeded to
install new machines and machinery at the said
premises;
v) In spite of the orders dated September 11, 2013 and
December 2, 2013, the contemnors have made
constructions at the sheds and the other various parts
and portions of the factory;
From the Special Officer's report it appears that:-
i) The new construction (temporary) at the factory premises have all
been removed.
ii) In respect of the violations alleged at point (ii) of para 42 of the
contempt application, there does not appear to be any violations as
the order dated 11th September, 2013 does not stop the alleged
contemnors from carrying on manufacturing business at the said
premises.
iii) The construction sheds (temporary) have all been removed and
order of the Court has been duly complied.
iv) In respect of point no.(iv) at para 42, again the order of which
violation has been alleged does not stop the alleged contemnors
from installing new machine and machinery at the said premises.
v) The allegations at (v) of para 42 is a repetition of points at (i) and
(iii).
Thus, there being no alleged violation of the order dated 11 th September,
2013, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped.
CC/45/2018 stands disposed of.
(SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.)
A.Sadhukhan
