Tripura High Court
Iritty Spices vs Shri Rabndar Kumar Shamal And Another on 15 May, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Cont. Cas(C) No. 29 of 2024
Iritty Spices
......... Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
Shri Rabndar Kumar Shamal and another
......... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. T. D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Ms. Rimi Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
_O_R_D_E_R_
15/05/2024
Heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
Rimi Debbarma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
[2] The operative part of the order under offence passed in WP(C)
No.10 of 2024 dated 13.03.2024 reads as under:
"It however appears that after cancellation of the sale
order the balance amount remaining in the name of the
petitioner to the tune of Rs.86,39,100/- has been refunded
on 05.01.2024. We are not informed as to whether the
interim stay on the lifting of the remaining amount of
graded sheet rubber had been adhered to or not. In case, the
remaining lots of graded sheet rubber under the sale order
dated 22.12.2023 has not been lifted, the respondents could
allow the petitioner to lift it upon deposit of the requisite
amount of money refunded to him. Otherwise, respondents
could undertake fresh calculation of the amount which
requires to be refunded to the petitioner if any, over and
above the amount of Rs.86,39,100/- earlier refunded on
05.01.2024.
However, the cancellation of the sale order cannot be
upheld in the eye of law for the aforesaid reasons. It is
accordingly set aside.
This exercise be completed within a period of 4(four)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the
extent indicated here-in-above. Pending application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of."
[3] Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
referred to the interim order dated 10.01.2024 (Annexure-1) wherein this Court
had directed the respondents not to issue delivery orders in respect of the
remaining quantum of the specified category of graded rubber sheets as per the
sale order dated 22.12.2023 issued in favour of the petitioner to any other
person. It is pointed out that the amount of rubber therefore could not have been
lifted by any other person upon passing of the interim order by this Court in
petitioner's favour. Despite representation made by the petitioner and his
willingness to deposit any further amount to lift the remaining amount of graded
rubber sheet, the respondent did not comply with the directions of this Court and
instead issued a letter on 10.04.2024 (Annexure-5) in favour of the petitioner that
the balance amount of Rs.86,39,100/- was refunded to the petitioner on
05.01.2024 itself as full and complete refund. It is submitted that in such
circumstances, the refund of the remaining amount lying with the respondents
would not relieve the respondents from complying with the directions of this
Court both in the interim order and in the final judgment. The petitioner should
have been allowed to lift the remaining amount of graded sheet rubber upon
deposit of requisite amount of money. Therefore, the respondents are in contempt
of the orders of this Court.
[4] We have examined the materials on record and also gone through
the interim order as well as the judgment passed by this Court. Let it be first
indicated that once the writ petition has been decided in the manner indicated
above, the interim order, if any, passed earlier during proceedings of writ
petition, such as order dated 10.01.2024, gets merged in the final order. Let it be
further indicated that when the interim order was passed on 10.01.2024 the
remaining amount of Rs. 86,39,100/- had already been refunded to the petitioner
on 05.01.2024, a fact which was also not brought to the notice of this Court when
the interim order was passed. If the total balance amount of Rs.86.39 lakhs
(approximately) deposited by the petitioner has been duly refunded even before
passing of the interim order, we do not find that the respondents are liable to be
proceeded for deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court.
[5] As such, we do not find any case of contempt being made out.
Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Munna S MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2024.05.17 16:39:04 +05'30'
