Dismissed

The Waterbase Limited v. Ashitkumar Rajanikant Joshi

Madras HC21 Oct 2021CONT P/870/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition filed for willful disobedience of an order to furnish a Bank Guarantee, this Court observed that mere violation does not constitute contempt. The Court held that since the applicant invoked arbitration, the proper remedy lies under Section 17 of the Act before the Arbitrator, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Petition was closed and Sub Application No.237 of 2021 was closed.

The Waterbase Limited Vs Ashitkumar Rajanikant Joshi — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Cont.P.No.870 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated 21/10/2021

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Contempt Petition No.870 of 2021

¶7

The Waterbase Limited A company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 rep. By its Authorised Signatory Mr.M.Kumaravel Registered Office at Ananthapuram Village, Thotapalli Gudur Mandal Nellore District 524 344. Also at Thapar House No.37 Montieth Road, Egmore Chennai 600 008. ... Petitioner/Applicant Vs

¶8

Ashitkumar Rajanikant Joshi

¶9

Varsha Ashitkumar

¶10

Narendrakumar Vindhyachal Singh 4. Gita Narendra Singh 5.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for contempt and willful disobedience of the order dated 19/3/2021 passed by this Court in A.No.115 of 2021.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.Adarsh For Respondents : Notice returned - unserved

¶14

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

Page No:1/4

¶17

Cont.P.No.870 of 2021

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondents for

¶20

contempt and willful disobedience of the order, dated 19/3/2021, passed in

¶21

A.No.115 of 2021.

¶22

Heard Mr.Adarsh, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that being the

¶24

Directors of M/s.Wave Aquatic Private Limited, the respondents are clearly in connivance with each other to deliberately and willfully breach the direction of this Court to furnish a Bank Guarantee of Rs.7,02,20,683.13.

¶25

Mere violation cannot be termed as contempt in all the matters. As

¶26

the applicant has already invoked the arbitration, it is for him to work out his remedy under Section 17 of the Act before the learned Arbitrator.

¶27

In such a view of the matter, this Contempt Petition is closed.

¶28

Consequently, Sub Application No.237 of 2021 is closed.

¶29

SD/-

¶30

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶31

mvs

¶32

//Certified to be true copy//

¶33

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶34

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GS/31/01/2022

¶35

Page No:2/4

The Waterbase Limited v. Ashitkumar Rajanikant Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Waterbase Limited v. Ashitkumar Rajanikant Joshi

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

India Growth Fund through Vs M.Thiagarajan

M/s.Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. Vs a.Biju

m/s.Everlike Mercantile Private Ltd, Vs Mrs. Punitha Muthu, proprietrix of M/s. Kosalrams Foundations

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Rep.by its authorised sigantory Vs Mr.S.Kumaresan, S/o. Subramaniyan

M/s Tvs Credit Services Limited Vs M/s.Yuvaraj S and another

Mr.Saifuddin Lukmanji Bharmal Vs M/s.Rr Donnelley India Outsource Pvt. Ltd. Rep.by its Director