Jharkhand High Court
Cont.(Cvl)/269/2020 of MS PRAYAAS AUTOMATION PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR SAHANOWAJ KHAN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 12 June 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Cvl.) No.269 of 2020 ----- Mr. Prayaas Automation Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Mohan Ghosh Road, Ramchandrapur, PO-Narendrapur, Kolkata, through its Authorized Signatory Mr.
2026:JHHC:17007-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Contempt Case (Cvl.) No.269 of 2020
-----
Mr. Prayaas Automation Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Mohan Ghosh Road, Ramchandrapur, PO-Narendrapur, Kolkata, through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Sahanowaj Khan, aged about 38 years, son of Md. Abdul Haque Khan, resident of Khan Pada, Bonhooghly, Sonarpur, South 24
Parganas, PO-Bonhooghly, P.S-Narendrapur, District-South 24 Parganas (West Bengal) ....... …
Petitioner
Versus
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. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dr. Nalin Shinghal, Chairman cum Managing Director, Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi.
3. Sri R.K. Shankhwar, The Manager/Purchase, Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (Project Division), Both having his office at HMBP, ADM. Building, Dhurwa, PO- Dhurwa, P.S-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) … … Opposite Parties ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG ------
Order No.11/Dated: 12th June, 2026
1. Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in absence of any instruction from his client, he is not pressing the present contempt petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the State has raised no objection.
3. Considering the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the instant contempt petition is dismissed as not pressed and disposed of as such.
4. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated:12.06.2026. Sudhir