Disposed

M/S. Vipul Bright Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Gopal Patwardhan, Director of M/S. Duke Corporation Ltd.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2016CNPCP/4/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a contempt petition alleging breach of a consent undertaking regarding dishonored cheques. Finding the breach was not deliberate and the full amount was paid, the court held the contempt was purged and accepted an undertaking for future VAT installments.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed as respondent purged contempt by paying all dues; new undertaking accepted for VAT payment.

M/S. Vipul Bright Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gopal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

19.CNPCP-4-2015

¶2

1/3

¶3

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

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.4 OF 2015 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.9 OF 2013

¶5

M/s. Vipul Bright Steels Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

….Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Gopal Patwardhan, Director of M/s. Duke Corporation Ltd.

¶9

….Respondent

¶10

Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Ajit Kocharekar for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 14^th JANUARY, 2016

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

1 This contempt petition has been filed alleging breach of an

¶15

undertaking given by the respondent in the consent terms dated 18^th March, 2014 that the post dated cheques that were handed over to the petitioner will be duly honored and the said cheques under no circumstances will be dishonored by the bankers. The respondent had given six post dated cheques for Rs.13,66,700/-. It is alleged that the first cheque for Rs.13,66,700/- was dishonored.

¶16

2 The counsel for the respondent agrees that it was dishonored but submits that the amount thereafter was paid by pay order before end of April, 2014 itself. The counsel further submits that the remaining five

¶17

Gauri Gaekwad

¶18

2/3 19.CNPCP-4-2015

¶19

installments were honored. The counsel for the petitioner also confirms having received the entire amount of Rs.82 lakhs.

¶20

3 In view thereof, though I do not have any cause to find that there was a deliberate and willful breach of the undertaking. Eeven assuming for the sake of argument there was a deliberate and willful breach of the undertaking given to this court, the respondents having paid all the six installments agreed in the consent terms, I would consider the respondent having purged the contempt.

¶21

4 In clause 3 of the settlement agreement dated 17^th March, 2014, the respondent had agreed to pay the VAT component in the value of the machines, i.e., Rs.99,60,024/-. The counsel for the petitioner states that the VAT is 12.5% on this amount which works out a little less than Rs.12,50,000/- (approx).

¶22

5 The counsel for the respondent states that this amount of Rs.12,50,000/- or the actual amount, which may include interest to be paid by the petitioner to the department, will be paid in three equal monthly installments. The counsel confirms that he has instructions to make this statement to the court. Therefore, the court accepts the statement as an undertaking to the court.

Gauri Gaekwad

19.CNPCP-4-2015

3/3

6 The first installment to be paid by 31^st January, 2016.

¶27

7 The contempt petition accordingly disposed.

¶28

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶29

Gauri Gaekwad

M/S. Vipul Bright Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Gopal Patwardhan, Director of M/S. Duke Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Vipul Bright Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Gopal Patwardhan, Director of M/S. Duke Corporation Ltd.

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

Tiger Steel Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S S.K.Agrotech Industries Limited Cin No. U01403MH2009PLC194253

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs Asian Electornics Ltd, Cin NO.L99999MH1964PLC012835

Simplex Crane Services Pvt. Ltd. and 1 Other Vs Pravin Chheda and 1 Other

Greenstone Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vikram Ahuja and 4 Others

M/S. Pam Pharmaceutical and Allied Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Astral Glass Pvt. Ltd.

Shree Renuka Sugars Limited and Anr. Vs the Official Liquidator of K. R. Commodities Exports Private Limited and Others