SOUMEN SEN, J - (1.) The petitioner no.2 was present in the first call. He was requested to wait till the other matters are called on since the last matter in the list needs some consideration in view of the allegations made against the Court. Incidentally, amongst the other matters, few matters concern the petitioners and such matters were passed over in the first call. Thereafter, when the matter is called after the other matters are over, the petitioner no.2 could not be found. The other remaining matters are of the petitioners and they are called again along with this matter. The Court has waited for almost half an hour with the expectation that the petitioner no. 2 would turn up and justify the statement made in the petition. In the first call, the petitioner No. 2 had appeared and submitted that he would justify his conduct. However, it appears that the petitioner no. 2 has left the Court.
(2.) In GA No. 434 of 2019, the applicant has made a prayer for release of the matter pending before me including the contempt matter. This matter was initially moved before Hon'ble Justice Arijit Banerjee. Justice Arijit Banerjee, by an order dated 21st February, 2019, released the matter on personal ground. The matter was thereafter assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice. The grounds for release are that favouritism was shown to one DYS Impex Private Limited in allowing them in extending the time to file quarterly statement of accounts as the advocate-on-record of the said respondent, namely, Ms. Sanchari Chakraborty happens to by my friend as revealed from my Facebook profile. The insinuation is that Ms. Chakraborty was appointed by DYS Impex Private Limited in order to get a favourable order from this Court. The same would be evident from paragraphs 14 to 19 of the petition, which are set out hereinbelow:- "14. That, your applicant state that, the respondent no: 2 DYS Impex Private Limited on the basis of one provisional statement of account on/from 1st July, 2018 to 30th Sep, 2018 obtained an leave to file the same within 7 days from date which was subsequently corrected and/or modified by the Learned Trial Judge to 10 days on the basis of a mentioning after expiration of the time granted. The Photocopy of the said provisional statement of accounts on/from 01st July, 2018 to 30th Sep, 2018 dated: 19.12.2018 filed by DYS Impex Private Limited is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I to the instant application. 15. That, your applicant state that, the respondent no: 2 DYS Impex Private Limited appointed Ms Sanchari Chakraborty who happens to be a friend of Learned Judge as revealed from the face book profile of the said counsel. The print out of the screen shot dated: 31.01.2019 taken from Advocate Sanchari Chakraborty facebook profile is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-J to the instant application. 16. That, your petitioner state that, as per rule 3 of the professional standards rules of BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA it is a professional mandate to not to communicate with the judge. The website copy of the Professional Standards Rules downloaded on 31.01.2019 from the Bar Council of India website is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-K to the instant application. 17. That, your petitioner state that, he has sent a whatsapp message to the Learned Assistant Registrar, Courts attached to court no:36 who is presently seisin over the matter with the screen shot of the judgment/orders link of the High Court website as on dated :31.01.2019 complaining "...Shakil da server teke order taa delete hoi geche ektu kindly check Korani appeal kore diyechi ekhun order na thakle server e" The print out of the WhatsApp message screen shot dated: 31.01.2019 by and between the petitioner and Assistant Registrar, Courts attached to court no:36 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-L to the instant application. 18. That, your applicant state that, the illegal manufacturer deliberately appointed a counsel who happens to be facebook friend of the Learned judge who is seisin over the matter and it is extremely surprising that, being an advocate and officer of the8 court they have misleaded the court and/or suppressed the saiud fact from the Learned Judge who is seisin over the matter and hampering the judicial decisions and never sought to release of the matter from the said court and by misleading the Learned court obtained an order first on 18th July, 2018 in G.A.No.2786 of 2018o wherein it was directed "...to file audited statement of accounts from inception" thereafter on 27th of August, 2018 in G.A.No.2248 of 2018o wherein "...statement of the defendant no:2 counsel was taken on record and he has assured the court that, he will file the unaudited statement of account from inception within two weeks and FIR filled by the applicant against the defendant no:2 and his counsel namely Ms Sanchari Chakraborty was annulled in a civil proceedings" instead of granting leave to take recourse to criminal jurisdiction in accordance with law. Thereafter in contrary to the said orders the said unscrupulous litigant on dated: 07.01.2019 passed in G.A.No: 3500 of 2018 "...obtained an order of filing provisional unaudited statement of accounts of defendant no:2 of merely one quarter i.e., from 01st July, 2018 to 31st Sep, 2018 and in default in interim order will revive." In contrary to order dated: 27.08.2018 wherein interim order was directed to be continued till compliance HENCE the self contrary orders of the earlier passed judgments is also indicative of the fact that, how the said unscrupulous litigant to save their illegal business and operation of their clients hampering and/or manipulating the judicial decision. 19. That, your application state that, it is also highly questionable that, at one hand in the order of amendment dated:08.05.2018 passed in G.A.NO:647 of 2018 the Hon'ble court allowed the amendment observing inter alia, "...The application appears to have been necessitated by reason of wrong and/or mis-description of some of the defendants in this suit. In the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs also want to bring certain subsequent events. The proposed amendment shall not change the nature and character of the suit. Under such circumstances, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the Master's Summons. The suit register be accordingly corrected and/or amended. The department is directed to carry out the amendments on or before 8th June, 2018. The plaintiffs shall re-verify the plaint, upon the proposed amendments being carried out, within one week thereafter and shall lodge fresh writ of summons for service within two weeks thereafter." Then how Learned Court further proceed to observe that, the order of injunction dated: 17th June, 2015 was not binding upon defendant no9: 135, 137, 138 and 140 who are correctly described as an partly not freshly added as recorded by the Learned Court in its order of amendment dated: 08.05.2018."
(3.) The petitioner no. 2 claims to be the managing director of the petitioner no.1 and since he was appearing in person, enough indulgence was shown to him from the first day which would be evident from the series of orders passed by this Court in various applications filed by him in the suit. In fact, the petitioners did not describe most of the defendants properly and have filed applications from time to time for amendment of the plaint and such prayers were allowed. The initial order of injunction dated 17th June, 2015 was an ex parte order. It revealed later on that due to mis-description of large number of parties, such parties who were likely to be affected by the said order of injunction could not approach the Court earlier and this has given rise to filing of a number of contempt applications as well as applications for addition of party and/or vacating of the ad- interim order. One of the persons who had applied for vacating of the ad-interim order was DYS Impex Private Limited. The said entity filed an application for leave to intervene and for recalling of the order dated 17th June, 2015. The matter was heard at length and on 18th July, 2018 I delivered a judgment by which the interim order was vacated. However, DYS Impex Private Limited was directed to furnish accounts. The time to furnish the accounts for some period was extended on a satisfaction being recorded that sufficient cause existed for extending such time. The petitioners did not prefer any appeal against any of the orders. Without challenging any of orders, the petitioners have now come up with a plea that Ms. Sanchari Chakraborty, Advocate was appointed by DYS Impex Private Limited to obtain a favourable order.;