21st August, 2026 (AK) 13 CPAN 292 of 2026 In FMA 1450 of 2025 M/s. Sterling Finvest Private Limited and another Vs. Mrs. Chandrima Bhattacharya Mr. Partha Chakraborty Mr. Rishabh Dutta Gupta ...for the petitioners. Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee Ms. Mary Datta ...for the alleged contemnor. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record. 2. The present contempt application has been filed on the allegation that in contravention of the order dated November 18, 2025 passed in FMA 1450 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025, the alleged contemnor had not decided the application for conversion filed by the petitioners in terms of the order of this court, upon giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners hands over a copy of an order dated July 10, 2026 passed by the alleged contemnor and submits that in order to avoid the penalty for contempt, the alleged contemnor has hurriedly passed such order 2 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the alleged contemnor also cites the self-same order and submits that by way of a reasoned order, the application for conversion of the petitioners has been rejected. 5. We find from the order dated July 10, 2026 that, although only after filing of the contempt application, a reasoned order has been passed while disposing of the application for conversion filed by the petitioners. 6. In paragraph no.10 of the order under contempt, we had directed that if an application for conversion is filed, the concerned authorities shall consider the same and decide on the same, with an additional rider that an opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioners “if necessary”. 7. Since there is no statutory requirement otherwise to mandatorily give a hearing to the applicant for conversion, by dint of our order, only if the alleged contemnor felt it necessary to give such opportunity of hearing would it be appropriate for her to give such opportunity. 8. However, merely due to no opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioners, it cannot be said that the alleged contemnor has violated the order of this court. 3 9. In any event, by dint of the reasoned order dated July 10, 2026, the order of this court has been substantially complied with. 10. The remedy of the petitioners against the said order, if any, lies in accordance with law by way of an independent challenge and it is beyond the scope of this court, sitting in contempt jurisdiction, to enter into the legality and/or validity of the same. 11. Accordingly, CPAN 292 of 2026 is disposed of as infructuous, by granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the reasoned order dated July 10, 2026, if otherwise so entitled in law, by way of a properly constituted challenge. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)