Sajjid Amir Khan vs Anoop Bartaria And Others ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4575 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:20668]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 580/2015

                                    IN
                 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1503/2012

Sajjid Amir Khan S/o Shri Amir Khan, Aged about 57 years, R/o
23/24, Sea Spring Cooperative Housing Society, Bj Road,
Bandstand, Bandra, Mumbai.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Anoop Bartania Director M/s R.f. Properties And Trading
         Ltd Now Known As World Trade Park Ltd, Malviya Nagar,
         Jaipur Raj.
2.       Anoop Bartaria S/o Shri Virendra Bartaria, R/o 61, Jai
         Jawan Colony, Scheme No.iii, Tonk Raod Jaipur
3.       Ruchi Bartaria W/o Shri Anoop Bartaria, R/o 61 Jai Jawan
         Colony Scheme No. iii, Tonk Road, Jaipur
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yadu Nath Bhargava with Mr. Arun Jain for Mr. Sandeep Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. T.C. Sharma Mr. Naval Kishore Saini for Mr. S.N. Kumawat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

04/09/2023

This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful

disobedience of the interim order dated 20.11.2012 passed by this

Court whereby, both the parties were directed to maintain status

quo regarding subject matter of the suit till disposal of the trial.

Inviting attention of this Court towards the FORM 2

(Annexure 5) under Section 75 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956,

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the

aforesaid interim order, the respondents have increased their

[2023:RJ-JP:20668] (2 of 3) [CCP-580/2015]

share capital in the company. He, therefore, prays that the

respondents may be directed to purge the contempt and they may

also be punished suitably.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, referring to

the contents of the plaint especially, para 7 and the prayer clause,

would submit that since, the interim order was confined to subject

matter of the suit, it did not extend to the shares hold by them or

increase in their share capital; but, to the extent of 60 lac shares

which were to be transferred by the petitioner to them. He,

therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition.

Heard. Considered.

This Court has, vide its interim order dated 20.11.2012,

contempt whereof is alleged, issued following direction:-

"1) The trial is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months.

2) The status quo as it exists today will be maintained by both the parties regarding subject matter of the suit till the conclusion of the trial."

A perusal of the contents of the plaint available on record as

Annexure 1 reveals that its subject matter has been 60 lac shares

of the company to be transferred by the petitioner to the

respondents. Although, it is also mentioned therein that the

petitioner has already transferred 33,45,000/- shares to the

respondents; but, from the contents of para no.7 of the plaint and

the prayer clause, it is established that the same were not subject

matter of the suit. Since, indisputably, there has been no

intermeddling by the respondents with the 60 lac shares to be

transferred by the petitioner to them, the subject matter of suit, in

[2023:RJ-JP:20668] (3 of 3) [CCP-580/2015]

violation of the interim order dated 20.11.2012, this Court is not

satisfied that any contempt is made out.

Resultantly, this contempt petition is dismissed.

Notices are discharged.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

PRAGATI/10

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)