Calcutta High Court
CPAN/1757/2025 of ADYA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs SWAPAN KUMAR RANA, MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 10 July 2026
2026 (AK) 16-17 C.P.A.N 1757 of 2025 in WPA 21968 of 2019 IA No: CAN 1 of 2021 CAN 2 of 2024 CAN 3 of 2024 With WPA 1674 of 2020 IA No: CAN 3 of 2023 Adya Projects Private Limited Vs. Swapan Kumar Rana Mr. Diilip Kumar Samanta Mr. Biswapriya Samanta Mr. Sabyasachi Howlader Ms. Tiyasa Singha
10th July,
(AK)
16-17
C.P.A.N 1757 of 2025
in
WPA 21968 of 2019
IA No: CAN 1 of 2021
CAN 2 of 2024
CAN 3 of 2024
With
WPA 1674 of 2020
IA No: CAN 3 of 2023
Adya Projects Private Limited
Vs.
Swapan Kumar Rana
Mr. Diilip Kumar Samanta
Mr. Biswapriya Samanta
Mr. Sabyasachi Howlader
Ms. Tiyasa Singha Roy
...for the petitioner.
Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury
...for the alleged contemnor.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record.
2. In the present contempt application, the petitioner alleges that the order of this court dated December 5, 2019 passed in W.P. 21968(W) of 2019, whereby interim relief was granted in terms of prayer (e) of the writ petition, restraining the respondents, their men agents, servants, employees and/or subordinates from giving in effect or further effect to the impugned notice of intended sale of the security interest issued by respondent no.8, has been violated.
3. From the averments in the contempt application, it transpires that certain officers of the respondent-
Bank have been communicating to the petitioner, insisting on payment of the loan money.
4. However, per se, such act on the part of the officials of the Bank, even if any, do not amount to acting in terms of the said sale notice, the operation which was stayed by the order under contempt.
5. Also, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made efforts for a one time settlement in the meantime, thus indicating that the petitioner has also approached the bank officials in the meantime.
6. Hence, we do not find any contumacious action on the part of the Bank or that the sale notice, which was stayed by the order under contempt, has been given effect to in any manner.
7. Thus, no contempt lies and the contempt application is not maintainable.
8. Accordingly, CPAN 1757 of 2025 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.
9. Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)