[2026:RJ-JP:13957] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 236/2026 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.26387/2018 Rajesh Gupta S/o Shri Pooran Chand Gupta, Aged About 58 Years, Proprietor, M/s. Ram Prasad Vijay Kumar Having Address At Gb-43, New Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard, Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sashidhar Jagdishan, Managing Director Hdfc Bank, Hav- ing Its Registered Office At Hdfc Bank Ltd. House Senap- ati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013, Ma- harashtra 2. Priyank Vijay, Regional Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd., Fourth Floor, Times Square Building, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302039 3. Kailash Sharma, Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd., 414-417, Hawa Mahal Road, Shubhash Chowk, Jaipur-302002 4. Ravi Sharma Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd., Shyam Tower, 21, Kailash Colony, Road No. 2, Alwar-301001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Sharma with Mr. Himanshu Agarwal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 02/04/2026 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which reads as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:13957] (2 of 4) [CCP-236/2026] “1. This petition is filed challenging award dated 26.11.2018 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'PLA'). 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner availed a cash credit facility from the respondent-Bank. On failure to maintain financial discipline the account was declared Non-Performing Asset (for brevity 'NPA') on 29.01.2018. The petitioner on 08.07.2018 filed an application asking for the statement of account, loan agreement and other documents. On 17.09.2018, notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the SARFAESI Act') was issued and amount due was Rs.7,60,38,719/- as on 31.08.2018. 3. The petitioner instead of filing the objection under Section 13(3A) of the Act filed an application before PLA raising a grievance that documents asked for were not supplied and that an amount due as debit entry of Rs.47,37,800/- is wrongly added. On 29.10.2018, the respondent-Bank filed OA before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for brevity 'the DRT'). Thereafter, on 12.11.2018 the petitioner filed objections to notice under Section 13(2). Upon dismissal of the application by the PLA, the present petition has been filed. 4. After hearing arguments at some length on 06.01.2025, following order was passed and is reproduced:- "1. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the documents asked for have been substantially supplied to the petitioner along with copy of the Original Application (for short 'OA') pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short 'DRT'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though majority of the documents have been supplied, some are still to be supplied to which learned counsel for respondent- Bank instructions submits that if any further documents pertaining to the credit facility are asked for, the same would be provided. [2026:RJ-JP:13957] (3 of 4) [CCP-236/2026] 3. Its an undisputed fact that the recovery proceedings are pending before the DRT and the second issue raised by the petitioner before Permanent Lok Adalat with regard to the amount due would be subject matter of the OA and is to be dealt by the DRT. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage seeks time to have instructions. 5.Put up on 07.01.2025 at the top of the cause-list." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that in view of the statement made by learned counsel for Bank- respondent the grievance of non-supply of document as on date has been redressed and in case need so arises the remedy in accordance with law would be availed. 6. With regard to issue that amount due as shown by the Bank has been wrongly calculated is subject matter before the DRT in the OA filed by the Bank. The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the amount due and the calculation of the amount due at the appropriate stage before the DRT. Since the dispute raised by the petitioner before PLA has been redressed the legal issue with regard to maintainability of the petition before PLA is kept open. 8. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the issues before the appropriate forum and avail remedies in accordance with law for redressal of surviving grievances. 9. The petition is disposed of accordingly.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was supplied certain documents by the respondents, however all the documents have not been supplied, therefore, he has filed the present contempt petition. He further submits that the documents which have not been supplied, are relevant, in view thereof, notice to contempt petition may be issued to the respondents. 3. This Court noted that in the writ petition, the petitioner made a statement that respondent-Bank has supplied certain necessary documents and considering the same, the writ petition was [2026:RJ-JP:13957] (4 of 4) [CCP-236/2026] disposed of. The Court while passing the order dated 07.01.2025 also recorded that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the issues before the appropriate forum and avail all remedies in accordance with law. 4. It is not in disputed that the petitioner has received certain documents, therefore considering the Para 8 of the order dated 07.01.2025 as passed, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may take necessary steps to get the documents in accordance with law and further he is free to file necessary application before the DRT to claim those documents which according to him are in a possession of the respondent. 5. In view of the above, no case is made out for the contempt. 6. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J PAYAL DHAWAN /42