Emami Agrotech Ltd. v. Vandana Yadav an Anr.

Calcutta HC7 Mar 2025CPAN/1455/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt — CPAN 514 of 2023 and CPAN 1455 of 2023 in MAT 62 of 2019 — Emami Agrotech Ltd. v. Vandana Yadav & Anr. — order of cancellation dated 09.08.2023 (communicated 16.08.2023) held to be an attempt to circumvent order dated 08.12.2022 — cancellation set aside on limited ground — Coordinate Bench order dated 17.05.2024 staying cancellation noted — fixed capital investment subsidy undetermined — apology of alleged contemnors accepted — Rule not issued — contempt applications disposed of — decision dated 07.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Order of cancellation dated 9th August, 2023 set aside on the limited ground that it circumvented the order dated 8th December, 2022; apology of the alleged contemnors accepted; Rule not issued; contempt applications CPAN 514 of 2023 and CPAN 1455 of 2023 disposed of. ¶¶16

Emami Agrotech Ltd. Vs Vandana Yadav an Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of cancellation dated 9th August, 2023 (communicated on 16th August, 2023) could survive, having been passed in the teeth of, and as an attempt to circumvent, the order dated 8th December, 2022. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

The order dated 8th December, 2022 could not have been bypassed: the cancellation order passed in its teeth was a clear attempt to circumvent that order, a fact already taken note of by the Coordinate Bench by its order dated 17th May, 2024.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

The order of cancellation dated 9th August, 2023 cannot survive and is set aside on the limited ground that it circumvented the order dated 8th December, 2022.

¶¶14

Key takeaways

The apology tendered by the alleged contemnors is accepted and no Rule is issued; the contempt applications are disposed of with that observation.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt applications (CPAN 514 of 2023 and CPAN 1455 of 2023) by Emami Agrotech Ltd. against Vandana Yadav & Anr., arising in MAT 62 of 2019, decided on 07.03.2025 by a Division Bench (Soumen Sen and Biswaroop Chowdhury, JJ.). The Bench held that the order of cancellation dated 9th August, 2023, communicated to the petitioner on 16th August, 2023, was a clear attempt to circumvent the order dated 8th December, 2022, and could not have been passed in its teeth — a fact already noted by a Coordinate Bench which had stayed the cancellation on 17th May, 2024, primarily because it was passed without determination of the fixed capital investment subsidy. On that limited ground the cancellation order was set aside. The apology tendered by the alleged contemnors was accepted, no Rule was issued, and the contempt applications were disposed of.

¶1

07.03.2025 Sl No.3 Court No.37 (gc)

¶2

CPAN 514 of 2023 Emami Agrotech Ltd. Vs. Vandana Yadav In MAT 62 of 2019 With CPAN 1455 of 2023 Emami Agrotech Ltd. Vs. Vandana Yadav & Anr.

¶3

Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rahul Dhanuka, Mr. Niraj Baheti, Ms. Sreeja Chakraborty, Mr. Santanu Chatterjee, Mr. Yash Singhi … For the Petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P., Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Mr. Balarko Sen,

¶5

Mr. Saptak Sanyal

¶6

…for the Alleged Contemnors. Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Ld. A.G.P., Mr. Tanay Chakraborty, Mr. Suddhadev Adak

¶7

…for the WBIDC.

¶8

There cannot be any doubt that the order of cancellation dated 9^th August, 2023 communicated to the petitioner on 16^th August, 2023 was an attempt to circumvent the order dated 8^th December, 2022 and this fact was taken note of by the Coordinate Bench in its order dated 17^th May, 2024. We adjourned this matter on 21^st February, 2025 in order to enable the alleged contemnors to obtain necessary instruction with regard to

¶9

¶10

the cancellation that was stayed by the

¶11

Coordinate Bench on 17^th May, 2024.

¶12

¶13

The learned Counsel for the alleged contemnors have submitted that the order of cancellation was stayed primarily on the ground that it was passed without determination of the fixed capital investment subsidy for which the decision of the authority concerned was held to be prima facie in disobedience of the order dated 8^th December, 2022. There cannot be any doubt that the said order could not have been passed in the teeth of the order dated 8^th December, 2022 and this is a clear attempt to circumvent the said order.

¶14

The cancellation order cannot survive for the reasons indicated above. The order of cancellation is accordingly set aside on the aforesaid limited ground.

¶15

We accept the apology tendered by the alleged contemnors and, accordingly, we do not issue Rule.

¶16

The contempt applications are, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

¶17

(Soumen Sen, J.)

¶18

(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)

Emami Agrotech Ltd. v. Vandana Yadav an Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emami Agrotech Ltd. v. Vandana Yadav an Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sahida Construction Vs M/S. Rcs Universal and Co.

Deepak Bhargava and Ors. Vs Jagrati Trade Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Jagrati Trade Services Private Limited Vs Deepak Bhargava and Ors.

M/S. Emami Agrotech Ltd. Vs Vandana Yadav

Shibasish Chatterjee Vs Debasish Chatterjee &Anr

Sukhchand Sekh and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal