m IN THE HIGH COURT O F JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR t^ ^ CONTEMPT CASE (o NO. s^ °f^^'&ll|ngigencb APPLICANTS Automobiles1 'Privat%g|1K" ..^'y.r ft • W \lv' 1.. Bhilai ^ Vjg.-'^V!^ Limited, a company incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 havingits registered office at S.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg, thr-ough its Director' •'.. i';^;-s;;-'^'S^E^^il;3.' RESPONDENTS (Contemnors) Vs Shri Rajesh Bhutani, son o||| Late Mukund Lal Bhutani. ,'• & S 2. Rajesh Bhutani, s/o Late . Mukund Lal Bhutani, aged:T% about 43 years, r/o £,E. Road;;9^ Power House Road, Bhilai, K Director, Bhilai Automobilesg:^ Private Limited. Bhilai. i •".•,/ly;;.. ^SB'S^E 's^^s^ 1. Shri Rajesh Sukumar Topp®j|3|s|gg;^ Commissioner, tAunic\p<SKy^\. Corporation, Bhilai, t)istricf;:^P! Durg (C6) '':.^::M%;::i.;' 2. Shri Ashok Dwivedi, Revenue^'s%^ . Officer, MunicipalKAtlaiJ^ Corporation, Bhilai, Distriet ,.^,' t)urg (C6) ^ , :.:::^N»::':1. 3. Shri -K.K. Singh,:: Buildi.ggggJSK& Permission Officer, Munici,fH:il^:^gi Corporation, Bhilai, C)istr'rcT^ i^:' Durg (C6) ...^^)SiS^.:i; lafnffliE :8feiS. CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF T)-B*gB|i CONSTITUTION OF IN&IA READ WITH SECTIONtZ Qff THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1973. g ^i^ T ^' ~S^( '<\WW<i, 'Q-^WW, iq<r1iy>4,< ...C^..d.:...C..?±6:..Cf.frJ.^^Z//<s [200 w^"a'*"^ Canbc^LCQ ^^ affl^T 'T^T (ici(5<Ii<tcl) fll^t^iI^IW Wi ofl^<i ^lN* "i -^. J^-aveeii W(iw ^ifei 3n%?[ FSB : Hoa'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrlva^ava. J.I 11.8.2011 Shri Sanieer Uraon, coun^el for fhe appUeants. The matter is Usted for orders ondefault. On 3.5.2011, time was| appUcants for removuig fhe de^iilt filed by ftie applicants on 29.7.' Registry is Hable to over-ruled. In fhe entire petition file4 been stated fhat fhe Project Bhilai AutomobUes Pvt. Ltd. objection by the Registiy tbat petition have inentioned tha1) (Annexure C-2), whereas, Autoiupbiles. Even in the obje| aspect has not been clarified. Therefore, fhe objection of[the Registry is sustamed. In case the appUcants do period of 2 weeks from today, without furfher reference to the •til<l!rfll-l ^MvS ^ ft^t <(«I«(K •^•sifimaii^i sought by fhe counsel for fhe liilt Later on, an objection has been P 11, sating that fhe objection by the by the applicants, it has nowhere has been taken over by fhe lAveroient has been made ia fhe applicants in paragraph-4 of the fhe appUcants wrote document C-2 is written by the Prpject filed by the applicants, this Autt>mobiles tbe Aundxure bjejction |not take appropriate steps wifhiin a |fhe peti.ti.Gn shaU stand dismissed Bench. VnU'Ql «)A<yiWvW, (RFli^lN—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. ^nSbrWastava judge