Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17835 (JHR)

M/S ANVIL CABLES PVT LTD THRO ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER CUM AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR JAY PRAKASH MISHRA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cont.(Cvl)/538/2024 · 2025-02-05

Deepak Roshan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Cvl.) No. 538 of 2024 M/s Anvil Cables Private Limited, a Private Limited Company incorporated and subsisting under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, having its Registered Office at 102, Krishna, 224, AJC Bose Road, P.O. & P.S.-A.J.C. Bose Road, District-Kolkata-700017 through its Assistant Manager-cum-Authorised Signatory, Mr. Jay Prakash Mishra, aged about 33 years, son of Shri Birendra Kumar Mishra, resident of F3-25C/1, New Gangipur Link Road, Green Field City Back Gate, Uttar Ganipur, Maheshtala (M), South 24 Paragnas P.O. and P.S.- Hooghly District- Hooghly, Pin Code-700141, West Bengal ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, 2. Sri Avinash Kumar, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa District- Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834004. 3. Sri Rakesh Sinha, Senior Manager (Finance & Accounts), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834004 …. ... Opposite Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For the JBVNL : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.S.C. Mr. Karamdeo, Advocate. --------- 10/Dated: 05.02.2025 Heard both sides. Substantial payment including total principal, cost and interest are alleged to have been paid by the opposite parties to the petitioner, but counsel for the petitioner disputes the computation of payment of interest. Therefore, granting liberty to the petitioner to claim the difference in interest, if any, due and payable by the opposite parties to the petitioner by way of separate writ petition, this contempt case is closed. Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) APK/VK