Calcutta High Court
Ravi Sanei vs Bhawrilal Sanei & Ors on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CONTEMPT)
ORIGINAL SIDE
Presents
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
C.C. No. 80 of 2024
In
G.A. No. 1 of 2024
In
C.S. No. 172 of 2024
Ravi Sanei
Versus
Bhawrilal Sanei & Ors.
Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kr. Ray
Ms. Rituparna Sanyal
Ms. Janvi Bidiyani
Mr. I. Basu
Ms. Siddhi Agarwal
Ms. Antalina Guha
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee
Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta
Mr. Vishwarup Acharyya
Mr. Akash Dutta
... For the alleged contemnors.
2
Hearing Concluded On : 24.02.2026
Judgment on : 25.03.2026
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The petitioner has filed the present contempt application on the
allegation of willful, deliberate and contumacious violation of the orders
passed by this Court dated 30th July, 2024 and 31st July, 2024 in G.A.
No. 1 of 2024 in C.S. No. 172 of 2024 by the alleged contemnors who
are the respondents in the suit.
2. By an order dated 30th July, 2024, this Court granted leave under
Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to the petitioner and the suit filed by
the petitioner was admitted subject to scrutiny by the department. The
petitioner along with the suit had also filed an application being G.A.
No.1 of 2024 for grant of interim relief and also prayed for ad-interim
order. Learned Counsel for the respondents appeared and prayed for
copy of the interim application. This Court directed the petitioner to
serve the copy of the application to the Learned Counsel for the
respondents and copy was served.
3. As the Counsel for the petitioner prayed for ad-interim order of
injunction, the Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents on
instructions from the respondents submits that they will not take any
steps for transfer of suit property till 31st July, 2024. As per
submissions, this Court fixed the matter on 31st July, 2024.
3
4. The matter was taken up for hearing on 31st July, 2024 for grant of
interim order. After hearing both the parties, this Court restrained the
respondent no.1 from alienating or creating any third-party interest
with respect to the properties mentioned in paragraph 18(a) of the
plaint till 8th September, 2024. The petitioner has communicated the
order dated 31st July, 2024 to the respondents on 1st August, 2024.
5. On 5th August, 2024, the petitioner came to know that three deeds have
been executed on 1st August, 2024 out of which two deeds have been
executed by the respondent no. 1 in favour of the respondent no. 3 and
one deed is executed by the respondent no. 2 in favour of the
respondent no. 3.
6. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was intending to move the application for
grant of ad-interim injunction after admission of the plaint but the
Learned Advocate representing the respondents entered appearance in
the suit and on instructions form the respondents, submits that the
respondents will not take any steps for transfer of the suit property till
31st July, 2024 and this Court taken up the application for grant of ad-
interim injunction and after hearing both the parties, has passed the
interim order but inspite of the same, the respondents willfully and
deliberately violated the order and executed deeds by transferring the
property which is the subject-matter of the injunction granted by this
Court.
4
7. Mr. Ghosh submits that despite having knowledge of undertaking and
interim order passed by this Court, the respondent no.1 has executed
Deeds of Gifts Nos. I-160312886/2024 and I-160312885/2024 in
respect of the property situated at 41, Elgin Road, (Lala Lajpat Rai
Sarani), Ward No. 70, Floor No.7 and Premises: 14, Road: Asoka Road
Ward: 74, Floor No.9 respectively on 1st August, 2024 in favour of the
respondent no. 3.
8. Mr. Ghsoh submits that the respondent no.2 has transferred another
property being premises No.14, Road: Asoka Road, Ward No. 74, Floor
No.9 by Deed of Gift dated 1st August, 2024, being No. I-
160312888/2024 in favour of the respondent no. 3.
9. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the judgment in the case of Ghanshyam Sarda
Vs. Sashikant Jha, Director, M/s J.K. Jute Mills Company Limited
and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 599 and submits that for
transfer of any tangible immovable property, under Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, requires a registered instrument. The
transfer becomes effective, and title passes only upon registration. He
submits that date of registration is crucial because the transfer is
effected and title passes only on registration, therefore, in contempt
proceeding the date of registration is crucial.
10. Mr. Ghosh has relied upon the judgment in the case of Sita Ram Vs.
Balbir Alias Bali reported in (2017) 2 SCC 456 and submits that
there is a distinction between (i) proceeding against the person bound
5
by an order for enforcement in favour of the party who obtained it and
(ii) proceeding against third party whose conduct obstructs the course
of justice. He submits that a third party who knowing the terms of the
injunction, willfully assists the person to whom it was directed to
disobey it, is liable for contempt, whether or not the enjoined person
had notice. He submits that such conduct is contempt by third party
himself who knowingly interferes with the administration of justice by
causing the order of the Court to be thwarted.
11. Mr. Ghosh submits that the respondents have given undertaking before
this Court on 30th July, 2024 that they will not transfer the property
and on 31st July, 2024, this Court passed an order restraining the
respondents from alienating and transferring the suit property but
inspite of an order of injunction, the respondents have transferred the
suit property by violating the order passed by this Court.
12. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the judgment in the case of Ranjit Kumar
Haider Vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2003 SCC
OnLine Cal 449 and submits that the Court has inherent power, even
without a formal finding of contempt, to issue mandatory injunctions in
contempt proceedings to implement its earlier orders and prevent their
flouting by maneuver or subterfuge.
13. Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the
respondents submits that no act has been committed by the alleged
contemnor nos. 1 and 2 by violating the orders dated 30th July, 2024 or
6
31st July, 2024. He submits that the deeds were presented for
registration on 18th July, 2024 and execution of the gift deeds were
admitted by the office of the Registrar of Assurance on 18th July, 2024
and Stamp Duty and Registration Charges were also paid on the same
day. He submits that all the acts for registration of Deeds of Gift were
done prior to the orders passed by this Court dated 30th July, 2024 and
31st July, 2024.
14. Mr. Mitra submits that no further acts were required to be done by the
alleged contemnors in relation to the gifts under the Registration Act,
1908 or West Bengal Registration Rules, 1962. He submits that the
alleged contemnors have not violated the orders passed by this Court
as alleged by the petitioner.
15. Mr. Mitra submits that “date of registration” is on 1st August, 2024 and
“date of completion” is on 2nd August, 2024 but for registration of deed,
the alleged contemnors have no role to play as the same is the duty of
the office of the Registrar of Assurance. He submits that on 2nd August,
2024, the District Sub-Registrar has issued the Certificate of
Registration.
16. Mr. Mitra relied upon Sections 32 to Section 60 of the Registration Act,
1908 read with West Bengal Registration Rules, 1962 and submits that
the deeds on the basis of which the petitioner has filed the present
contempt application, does not in any manner indicate that the alleged
contemnors have violated the order passed by this Court dated 30th
7
July, 2024 and 31st July, 2024 or acted against the orders dated 30th
July, 2024 or 31st July, 2024.
17. Mr. Mitra submits that Certificate of Admissibility under Rule 43 of the
West Bengal Registration Rules, 1962, was issued by the District Sub-
Registrar on 2st August, 2024. The said certificate and the endorsement
relate back to the date of execution of the deeds and the deeds were
presented on 18th July, 2024 much prior to the order passed by this
Court.
18. Mr. Mitra submits that being aggrieved with the order passed by this
Court dated 31st July, 2024, an appeal was preferred being APOT No.
284 of 2024 and by an order dated 29th January, 2025, the appeal was
disposed of by returning the plaint to the petitioner, thus as on date
there is no suit pending in the eye of law before this Court.
19. The petitioner has filed the present contempt application against the
alleged contemnors on the allegation of willful and deliberate violation
of the orders passed by this Court dated 30th July, 2024 and 31st July,
2024. The petitioner by relying upon three Deeds of Gift, has filed the
present application alleging that inspite of the order of injunction, the
alleged contemnors got the deeds registered on 1st August, 2024 and
completed on 2nd August, 2024.
20. The petitioner has relied upon the details received from the website of
the Office of the Directorate of Registration and Stamp Revenue
wherein it reveals that the District Sub-Registrar-III, South 24
8
Parganas registered three gift deeds being Deed No. I-160312885/2024
executed by Bhawrilal Sanei, the Contemnor No.1 in favour of Yash
Vardhan Sanei, the Contemnor No.3 dated 1st August, 2024 and
completed on 2nd August, 2024. Deed No. I-160312886/2024 executed
by the Contemnor No.1 in favour of Contemnor No.3 dated 1st August,
2024 and completed on 2nd August, 2024 and Deed No. I-
160312888/2024 executed by the Contemnor No.2 in favour of
Contemnor No.3 dated 1st August, 2024 and completed on 2nd August,
2024.
21. The alleged contemnors have disclosed the copies of three gift deeds in
their affidavit wherein it reveals that the contemnors have executed the
deeds on 18th July, 2024 and the same was admitted on the same day
and Stamp Duty was also assessed and paid on the same day i.e. on
18th July, 2024. Certificate of Admissibility was issued on 1st August,
2024 and Certificate of Registration was issued on 2nd August, 2024 by
the District Sub-Registrar -III.
22. The deeds disclosed by the alleged contemnors reveals that as per
Section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908 on 18th July, 2024, the deeds
were presented in the office of the District Sub-Registrar-III after its
execution by both the parties including witnesses to the said deeds. It
also appears that as per Section 34 of the Act on 17th July, 2024,
queries were made and in terms of Section 35 (a) on 18th July, 2024,
parties were present before the Registering Authority and admitted the
execution of the deeds.
9
23. As the alleged contemnors have admitted the execution of deeds, as per
Section 52 of the Act, finger prints and photographs of the donor and
donee was obtained and as per Section 58, the deeds admitted to
registration on 18th July, 2024. From the deed, it further appears that
after all the entries are made, the District Sub-Registrar has made his
endorsement on 18th July, 2024 in terms of Section 59 of the Act.
24. On completion of all formalities, in terms of Section 60 of the Act of
1908 read with Rule 69, the District Sub-Registrar has issued
Certificate of Admissibility on 1st August, 2024 and the Certificate of
Registration was issued on 2nd August, 2024 by mentioning registered
book number, volume number and deed number.
25. This Court considered the judgments relied by the petitioner and found
that the facts and circumstances of the present case are
distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the judgements
relied by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present contempt
application on the pretext that after the order of injunction passed by
this Court, the alleged contemnors have got the deeds of gift registered
before the Registering Authority. After perusing the deeds disclosed by
the alleged contemnors, this Court finds that with respect to the deeds,
queries were made by the Registering Authority on 17th July, 2024 and
being satisfied with the queries, the parties to the deeds present before
the Registering Authority and executed the deeds on 18th July, 2024.
Stamp Duty was also paid on 18th July, 2024. Finger prints were also
taken on 18th July, 2024 by affixing the photographs of the Donor and
10
Donee. The District Sub-Registrar made his endorsement on 18th July,
2024, itself.
26. This Court finds that execution and admission of the deeds were
completed on 18th July, 2024, i.e. much prior to the interim orders
passed by this Court dated 30th July, 2024 and 31st July, 2024. On 1st
August, 2024, Certificate of Admissibility was issued and on 2nd
August, 2024, the District Sub-Registrar has issued Certificate of
Registration and the alleged contemnors have no role to play with
regard to issuance of Certificate by the District Sub-Registrar.
27. Considering the above, this Court did not find any willful and deliberate
act committed by the alleged contemnors in violation of the orders
passed by this Court dated 30th July, 2024 and 31st July, 2024.
28. In view of the above, C.C. No. 80 of 2024 is dismissed. Interim order
is hereby vacated. Rule, if any, issued against the alleged contemnors
are discharged.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
