[2026:JHHC:3054-DB] Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Cvl.) No. 55 of 2026 --------- Aavri Oversea Private Limited (formerly known as ‘Apical Exim Private Limited’), (an Existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act 2013), having its office at 224A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Krishna Buildings, Suit Nos. 904 and 905, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S. A.J.C. Bose Road, District Kolkata (West Bengal), PIN 700017, through its Authorized Signatory, namely, Binod Ram, aged about 39 years, son of Shreedhar Ram, resident of Dubey Para, N. Bandh, Burnpur, Asansol MC, P.O. & P.S.Burnpur, District Bardhaman, West Bengal, PIN 713325. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, age and father’s name now known to the petitioner, presently posted and working as the Official Liquidator of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, and, also the liquidator of Kumardhubi Metal Casting and Engineering Limited having its office at Registrar of Companies-cum-Official Liquidator, Magal Tower, 4th Floor, Old Hazaribagh Road, New Kantatoli Chowk, P.O. Kantatoli, P.S. Sadar, District-Ranchi, PIN-(Jharkhand). … … Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate For the O.P.-State : Mr. Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG-II For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Himanshu Kr. Mehta, Advocate Mrs. Manjusri Patra, Advocate Mr. Rishav Raj, Advocate Mr. Vidhan Kr. Singh, Advocate ----------- 03/Dated: 05th February, 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted by referring to Section 634 of the Companies Act, 1956 that the present contempt case has wrongly been filed before the wrong forum, as such, he seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the present contempt case with the liberty to avail the remedy as available under the statute. [2026:JHHC:3054-DB] Page | 2 2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have appeared and have raised no objection to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the instant contempt case is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to search out the remedy as available under the statute for redressal of its grievance. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 05th February, 2026 Saurabh/-