Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. - (1.) The opposite party/contemner, against whom the contempt rule has been issued, is an Advocate, practising in theHowrah Court, who was to appear before this Court on the returnable date, i.e. on 5th of August, 1996.
(2.) The contempt rule had been duly sewed and was received by the contemner/ Dilip Kumar Das on 27.7.1996, But he wilfully and deliberately- did not appear before this Court in terms of and in accordance with the directions 'given in the contempt rule. Previously, all attempts to enforce his personal attendance before this Court failed. As because an Advocate who is a contemner, is not appearing in Court in spite of various attempts being made, it is necessary to pass an order for his attendance adopting a drastic procedure, and the reasons for adopting such a drastic procedure are set out below.
(3.) There were serious allegations made against Mr. Dilip Kumar Das, Advocate practising in the Howrah Court. It was alleged that the said learned Advocate, on the strength of the Vakalatnama given by the petitioner Soorajmull Nagarmull, had withdrawn a sum of Rs 1,30,182.95 p. deposited by the tenants, in 'the pending proceedings on August 30,1991; but he had not paid the same to the petitioner/landlord. Thereafter, the petitioner cancelled the Vakalatnama by a letter and also filed a petition before the Court below, praying for cancellation of the Vakalatnama. dated 28th February. 1986, on the ground stated in the said petition.;