Bank of India Vs Mayank Chaturvedi

¶1

1

¶2

RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed byRAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.01.07 17:14:43 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:879

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CONT No. 6 of 2026

¶7

1 - Bank of India Through- Authorised Officer, Suraj Kumar, S/o Kamlesh Kumar aged about 40 Years, Office at Bank of India, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶8

... Applicant/Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Mayank Chaturvedi, The Collector- Cum- District- Magistrate, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Manoj Gupta The Tehsildar Tahsil- Gharghoda Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh, Chhattisgarh,

¶12

3 - M/s Krishna Steel Industries Through Proprietor, Krishna Mittal S/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal Office (Unit At) O.P. Jindal Industrial Park Village - Tumidih Tehsil- Gharghoda Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh R/o House No. 06, Sai Heritage Colony, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh,

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause title as taken from Case Information System) For Applicant/Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. A.G.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

2

Order on Board

07/01/2026

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner would submit that vide order under contempt dated 26.07.2024 passed in WPC No.3702 of 2024, this Court has directed the respondents No.2 and 4 therein to take all necessary steps to take possession of the mortgaged property as mentioned in the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Raigarh (C.G.) (Annexure C/2), but the order has not been complied with, therefore, notice may be issued to the respondents in the contempt petition.

¶21

3. The applicant/petitioner has filed order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench in Cont. Case No.1446/2024 (Annexure C/3). Perusal of the said order shows that the aforesaid contempt case was filed by applicant/petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings for alleged disobedience of order dated 26.07.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench in WPC No.3702 of 2024. The said contempt petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench observing therein under paras 3 to 7 which is reproduced below :

¶22

“3. When the case is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondent authority vide order dated 30.08.2024 has passed the order that the status quo should be maintained till the final order, therefore, respondents

¶23

3

¶24

authority has not complied the order passed by this Court.

¶25

On perusal of the order dated 30.08.2024 it is crystal clear that respondent authority has passed the order of maintaining status quo till the final decision.

¶26

In view of the above, it’s not a case of willful disobedience/non-compliance of the order passed by this Court. However, if petitioner is having any grievance(s) regarding the order passed by the respondent authority, he will be at liberty to file appropriate application/petition before an appropriate Forum/Court.

¶27

In view of the above, the present contempt petition is closed and is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

No order as to cost(s).”

¶29

4. Perusal of aforesaid order shows that the Coordinate Bench has already taken view that non-compliance of order dated 26.07.2024 is not found to be a case of will-full disobedience/non-compliance of order dated 26.07.2024, in the light of order dated 30.08.2024 passed by DRT, Jabalpur (M.P. & C.G.).

¶30

5. Having considered the aforesaid view taken by Coordinate Bench in Cont. Case No.1446/2024, this contempt petition is not maintainable, hence, the same deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶32

Ravi Mandavi

Bank of India v. Mayank Chaturvedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Mayank Chaturvedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Pradeep Uike Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Tulika Tiwari Vs Ritesh Kumar Sharma

Gopal Kesharwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Shah Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh