Allowed

M/S Bijay Kumar Agarwal and Sons (Huf), v. Rajesh Tripathi

Gauhati HC4 Aug 2025Cont.Cas(C)/54/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a contempt petition and a review petition filed regarding the non-compliance with a previous order directing the delivery of goods upon partial payment. The court held the respondent violated the court order and directed police seizure of the goods for the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Officer-in-Charge directed to seize pipes, identify them, give custody to petitioner, who shall pay ₹70,000 to the officer before respondent receives the amount.

M/S Bijay Kumar Agarwal and Sons (Huf), Vs Rajesh… — Execution and Attachment | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010016532024

2025:GAU-AS:10133

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/54/2024

¶6

M/S BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL AND SONS (HUF),

¶7

REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTA SRI BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, SON OF LATE MOHANLAL AGARWAL, CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF SANITARYWARES, PIPES AND PIPE FITTINGS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S SANI STEELS CORPORATION, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT SECOND FLOOR, P.R. COMPLEX, A.T. ROAD, GHY-781001, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

RAJESH TRIPATHI

¶10

S/O- LATE BINOD NARAYAN TRIPATHI, PROPRIETOR OF M/S A.T.M. CARGO MOVERS (R), R/O- HOUSE NO. 24, P.P. ROAD, REHABARI, P.O. GUWAHATI-781008, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. O P BHATI, MR T C DAS,MR. P SARMA,S. K. GUPTA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K D CHETRI, MR. P BAJAJ

¶13

Linked Case : Review.Pet./77/2025

¶14

M/S ATM CARGO MOVERS (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI RAJESH TRIPATHY. ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT 620 VISHAL TOWER DISTRICT- CENTRE JANAK PURI

¶15

NEW DELHI- 110058 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY INCLUDING ONE SUCH BRANCH OFFICE AT HOUSE NO- 24

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

2ND FLOOR P.P ROAD REHABARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. PIN-781008.

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

M/S BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL AND SONS (HUF) REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTA SRI BIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL S/O LATE MOHANLAL AGARWAL HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT SECOND FLOOR P.R. COMPLEX A.T. ROAD GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. PIN- 781001.

¶20

-----------Advocate for : MR. K D CHETRI Advocate for : appearing for M/S BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL AND SONS (HUF)

¶21

:: BEFORE ::

¶22

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

05.08.2025

¶25

Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.D. Chetri, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.

¶26

2. This is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying for penalizing the opposite party for violation of the order of this Court dated 04.12.2023 passed in CRP No.98/2022.

¶27

3. The petitioner M/s. Bijay Kumar Agarwal & Sons (HUF) used to buy different pipes and other articles from different sources outside Assam. Those items were

¶28

Page No.# 3/3

¶29

carried by the transporter M/s. ATM Cargo Movers (R). On one such occasion, for carrying pipes from outside State to Assam, the petitioner was to pay ₹70,000/(Rupees Seventy Thousand) to the transporter. The transporter did not deliver the goods to the petitioner on the ground that he did not pay the arrear amount of ₹9,48,085/-. This Court directed the opposite party transporter to deliver the goods to the petitioner on taking ₹70,000/-. But M/s. ATM Cargo Movers (R) did not comply with the said order. Therefore, the present petition is filed.

¶30

4. The M/s. ATM Cargo Movers (R) kept on insisting that the petitioner should pay them the outstanding dues of ₹9,48,085/-. For that matter, M/s. ATM Cargo Movers (R) filed a review petition praying for reviewing the order dated 04.12.2023 passed in CRP No.98/2022.

¶31

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

¶32

6. This is a clear case of violation of the order of this Court. If M/s. ATM Cargo Movers (R) is entitled to get any money from the petitioner, it has other forums to seek relief. But the M/s. ATM Cargo Movers (R) cannot violate the orders of this Court.

¶33

7. Therefore, the Officer-in-Charge of concerned Police Station is directed to seize the pipes, to be identified by the petitioner, and thereafter the custody of the said pipes shall be given to the present petitioner. The petitioner shall handover ₹70,000/(Rupees Seventy Thousand) to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station from whom M/s. ATM Cargo Movers (R) shall receive the said amount.

¶34

With the aforesaid direction, the contempt petition as well as the review petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

M/S Bijay Kumar Agarwal and Sons (Huf), v. Rajesh Tripathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bijay Kumar Agarwal and Sons (Huf), v. Rajesh Tripathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surat Jaman and 39 Ors. Vs J. B. Ekka and 2 Ors.

Latika Das Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi, IAS and Anr.

Fazlul Mannan Vs Anurag Goel and Anr.

Chaya Dutta Vs Nibedita Dutta

Binoy Bikash Bora and Anr. Vs Devashish Sharma

Ranjita Das Vs Ravi Kota and 5 Ors.

Runu Dutta Vs Preetom Saikia and 3 Ors.

Lanima Saikia Vs Anurag Goel, IAS

Amar Kumar Brahma Vs the State of Assam

Mrs Sangita Das Ray Vs Nitai Ch Roy

Orietal Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sohitan Nessa and 3 Ors.

Nipom Das Vs the State of Assam

Md. Mazaharul Sultan Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

On the Death of Late Dulal Barman, His Legal Heirs, 1(A )Smti Dipika Barman Vs Smti Saraswati Barman