COCP-2882 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (204) JB Jewels and Metals LLP Lav Agarwal CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondents for willful disobedience to the order dated 29.05.2026 (Annexure P passed upon the respondents, to release the goods of the petitioner, which are lying at Amritsar Airport, on his furnishing of security/surety bonds equivalent to the value of the goods, to the satisfaction of respondent No.2. 2. Ratusaria, Advocate for respondent No.2, has caused appearance, and on instructions imparted to her by Mr. Rakesh Singh, Superintendent Customs, Amritsar, she fairly submits that the goods of the pe 2882-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JB Jewels and Metals LLP Versus Lav Agarwal and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Rahul Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Prithu Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Sagar Ratusaria, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) The instant contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondents for willful disobedience to the directions passed by this Court order dated 29.05.2026 (Annexure P-2), whereb passed upon the respondents, to release the goods of the petitioner, which are lying at Amritsar Airport, on his furnishing of security/surety bonds equivalent to the value of the goods, to the satisfaction of respondent No.2. Upon notice, Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Sagar Ratusaria, Advocate for respondent No.2, has caused appearance, and on instructions imparted to her by Mr. Rakesh Singh, Superintendent Customs, Amritsar, she fairly submits that the goods of the pe IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-2882-2026 Date of Decision : 24.06.2026 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Rahul Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate and Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Sagar Ratusaria, Advocate The instant contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondents for willful directions passed by this Court in CWP-17539-2026, vide , whereby, a specific direction was passed upon the respondents, to release the goods of the petitioner, which are lying at Amritsar Airport, on his furnishing of security/surety bonds equivalent to the value of the goods, to the satisfaction of respondent No.2. Upon notice, Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Sagar Ratusaria, Advocate for respondent No.2, has caused appearance, and on instructions imparted to her by Mr. Rakesh Singh, Superintendent Customs, Amritsar, she fairly submits that the goods of the petitioner will be released The instant contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondents for willful vide y, a specific direction was passed upon the respondents, to release the goods of the petitioner, which are lying at Amritsar Airport, on his furnishing of security/surety bonds Upon notice, Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Sagar Ratusaria, Advocate for respondent No.2, has caused appearance, and on instructions imparted to her by Mr. Rakesh Singh, Superintendent Customs, titioner will be released MANPREET SINGH 2026.06.25 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP-2882 within a period of seven working days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in view of the direction passed by this Court, by drawing an order dated 29.05.2026. 3. respondent No.2, no further order is required to be passed in the instant contempt petition, therefore, the same is hereby 4. undertaking (supra) instant contempt petition revived. 5. June 24, 2026 Manpreet 2882-2026 within a period of seven working days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in view of the direction passed by this Court, by drawing an order dated 29.05.2026. In view of the above specific statement made on behalf of the respondent No.2, no further order is required to be passed in the instant contempt petition, therefore, the same is hereby Needless to say, in case, there is non undertaking (supra) by respondent No.2, the petitioner is at liberty to get the instant contempt petition revived. Consequently, the instant contempt petition is 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable within a period of seven working days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in view of the direction passed by this Court, by drawing an In view of the above specific statement made on behalf of the respondent No.2, no further order is required to be passed in the instant contempt petition, therefore, the same is hereby closed. Needless to say, in case, there is non-compliance of the , the petitioner is at liberty to get the Consequently, the instant contempt petition is disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No within a period of seven working days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in view of the direction passed by this Court, by drawing an In view of the above specific statement made on behalf of the respondent No.2, no further order is required to be passed in the instant compliance of the , the petitioner is at liberty to get the MANPREET SINGH 2026.06.25 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment