Dismissed

View Enterprises (Mautitius) Ltd. v. Infraline Technologies (I) Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Aug 2004CONP/4/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a contempt petition where the petitioner alleged non-compliance with a specific direction regarding the Articles of Association. The court held that no action for contempt was called for as the dispute had been resolved amicably and the petitioner was no longer a shareholder.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties to act on an ordinary copy.

View Enterprises (Mautitius) Ltd. Vs Infraline Technologies… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.4 OF 2004
 IN
 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.230 OF 2003

¶4

 View Enterprises (Mauritius) Ltd. ....Petitioner

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Infraline Technologies (I)
 Pvt.Ltd. and others ....Respondents
 ....Contemnors

¶7

 Ms.Shruti Mehta i/b M/s.Trilegal for the Petitioner.

¶8

 Ms.Vandana Mahadik i/b M/s.Bilawala & Co. for the
 Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 19TH AUGUST, 2004.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

 1. The Petitioner alleges the contempt of an

¶12

 order dated 12th August, 2003, by which an order was

¶13

 made in terms of the minutes of the order. Clause

¶14

 1(d) of the minutes of the order provide that until
 the issue regarding interpretation of Article 79 of
 the Articles of Association is decided by the Arbitral
 Tribunal, the reference in Article 79 to Article 68
 shall be read as Article 69. There is no dispute

¶15

 : 2 :

¶16

 regarding the implementation of the same. It was
 contended that Article 69 was not strictly complied
 with despite the aforesaid order.

¶17

 2. The dispute has now been resolved between the

¶18

 parties amicably. The Petitioners are no more
 shareholders in the Company also.

¶19

 3. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
 no action for contempt is called for. The Petition is
 therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to
 costs.

¶20

 . Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this
 order duly authenticated by the Chamber Registrar/
 Court Stenographer of this Court.

View Enterprises (Mautitius) Ltd. v. Infraline Technologies (I) Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

View Enterprises (Mautitius) Ltd. v. Infraline Technologies (I) Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mascot Developers and Ors. Vs Hatane Premises Pvt.Ltd. (Previously Kown as Majithia and Mehata Constru

J.N.Shah Vs Mr. H.S.Nagashwaran and Ors.

H.K.Rustagi Vs Ing Investment Management (India)Pvt.Ltd.

Konkn Railway Corporation Ltd. Vs Patel Engineering Co.Ltd.

M/S Seagate Trading and Investment (Pvt) Ltd. Vs Vora and Vora and Ors.

Saraswatidevi P. Kothari Vs Sajjanraj Kothari and Madhubalal S. Kothari