KURIAN JOSEPH,J. - (1.) Company Petition No.2 of 1987, pending before the Company Judge of Calcutta High Court has given rise to several litigation's before the Company Judge, thereafter in intra court appeals and before this Court. One wonders why, despite several directions by this Court, the Company Petition itself has not been disposed of.
(2.) Having said that we have to deal with three set of contempt petitions before us i.e. Contempt Pet.(C) Nos. 824-827/2017 in C.A. Nos. 4302-4305/2017, Contempt Pet.(C) Nos. 840-842/2017 in C.A. Nos. 4306-4308/2017 and Contempt Pet.(C) Nos. 1485-1486/2017 in C.A. Nos. 4298-4299/2017. These contempt petitions arise out of our order dated 21.03.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4298-4299/2017 etc. The dispute is in a narrow compass as far as contempt is concerned. Paragraph 25 of our order dated 21.03.2017 reads as follows:- "25. In the background as above of the case, the Division Bench should not have interfered with the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge. However, taking note of the fact, an amount of Rs.2,23,00,000/- has been kept in fixed deposit towards lien for issuance of bank guarantee, we make it clear that the respondents shall not operate the bank accounts of the company after 03.04.2017 without securing an amount of Rs.8,32,60,331/-. We also make it clear that without leave of the High Court, the fixed deposit of Rs.2,23,00,000/- with the Axis Bank shall not be withdrawn. However, it would be open to the respondents to apply for appropriate clarification or modification of the order dated 26.06.2015, after making the deposit as above and it will be open to the learned Single Judge to pass the appropriate orders on merits of the application."
(3.) It is the common ground of the petitioners that the alleged contemnors have not respected the orders passed by this Court in its true spirit and they have been trying various methods to get around the order. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the alleged contemnors pointed out that there is no wilful or deliberate violation of any of the orders passed by this Court.;