Meghana Verulkar vs Jambopay Express Private Limited

On 14/02/2025, a show cause notice was issued to Respondent No.1, asking him to show cause as to why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against him.

¶40

Pursuant thereto, there is appearance of the Respondent/Contemnor. Time and again this Court noted that there is no compliance of the directions issued and in fact, on one of the occasion, the Court also permitted the contempt to be purged, by making the necessary payment.

¶41

3/4 902 CPCD-9-25.odt

¶42

The Contempt Petition was listed before me on 06/11/2025, when it is recorded that despite clear direction that if there is no compliance, the Contemnor shall remain present, but was not present and instead he referred to some proposal being extended to the Petitioner, which was plainly denied by the learned counsel representing the Petitioner.

¶43

It is in light of this, while adjourning the Petition to 27/11/2025, it was directed thus :-

¶44

“Upon due deliberation, either an amicable settlement is arrived at and the contempt is purged, or else the contemnor shall remain present in this Court on 27/11/2025.”

¶45

The proposal was permitted to be exchanged within a period of one week, so that it could be deliberated upon. However, nothing fruitful emerged and on 28/11/2025, Mr.Dixit, who had marked his appearance on-line, once again attempted to justify the disobedience, by submitting that he had forwarded the necessary proposal, but there was no response at the end of the Petitioner and this statement was once again denied by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶46

Today, my attention is invited to the order of which the contempt is alleged, and to the reply filed pursuant to the show cause notice being issued.

¶47

Mr.Dixit, has marked his appearance on-line in the wake of the disruption in the flight schedule, as he could not mark his appearance before the Court in person and considering the exigency, I have exempted his appearance.

¶48

However, on his appearance through VC, he do not dispute the fact that under the orders of the Court, the liability

¶49

4/4 902 CPCD-9-25.odt

¶50

of Rs.1.65 Crores is fastened on him in five Petitions, but he is insistent on one aspect, that when the investment was made, the company was in good shape, but as on today, the company is not in a position to return even the principal amount in entirety, and according to him, he has offered an amount of approximately Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs, which has been refused by the Petitioners. In my opinion it is rightly done, as the total liability fastened is about Rs.1.65 Crore.

¶51

Had it been the case that some dignified amount was offered by the Contemnor, learned counsel for the Petitioners say that it could have been considered, but since there is abject failure to even match the amount by 50%, the offer is outrightly declined by the counsel for the Petitioners.

¶52

In the wake of the aforesaid, since I find that the only defence projected by the Contemnor is, the company is in bad shape and this definitely cannot be a defence, it is directed that the Contemnor, Mr.Dixit shall remain present before this Court on 19^th December, 2025 at 10.30 a.m. , and since, I am satisfied that prima facie case is made out for initiation of contempt proceedings, the charge shall be framed against him and the proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall be initiated.

¶53

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Meghana Verulkar v. Jambopay Express Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meghana Verulkar v. Jambopay Express Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tata Capital Limited vs Tej Pal Choudhary

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs as Print Pack Global Private Limited and Anr.

Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. vs Harinderpal Singh Thukral and Anr.

Bank of India vs the Official Liquidator of Bagla International

Nuzhat Furniturewala, Former Director of Hanjer Biotech Energies Pvt. Ltd. vs the Official Liquidator Bhc Liquidator of Hanjer Bitech Engergies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bank of Baroda vs Amity Interlink Steels Pvt. Ltd.