Advance Magazine Publishers Inc v. Sabah M. Ambazhathingal

G.S Patel, J.:— passed an ad-interim order on 6th May 2016, inter alia, appointing a Receiver to make an inventory. The Court Receiver's representative visited the site in Kerala on 24 May 2016. I have a report dated 27 May 2016. It makes for the most disturbing reading, and that is putting it mildly. On pages 3 and 4 of this report, this is what the Court Receiver says:

“In the meantime Mr. Sabah M. Ambazhathingal, Defendant No. 1 and his father came at the site and used bad language to us and pushed us, and started shouting at us, and also snatched my site report, court order and my Identity Card and thrown away everything out of the said suit shop. I gathered my documents and Identity Card. The father of Defendant No. 1 threatened us that he will kill us. In view of the fact we left from the said suit shop premises of the said Defendants No. 1 and we decided to take help of local police. Thereafter, we reached premises of Defendant No. 2 Osaka Man Shoppe, Kannampurth Tower, Vazhakkad Road, Edavannappara Malappuram, District Kerala to meet other team members and to go to local police station to take help of police as we were afraid of our lives. On reaching said premises of Defendant No. 2 we noticed that my colleague Mr. V.D Phatak, Assistant has already found few impugned products which were kept in Blue Bag. I helped my colleague to seize the same and put seal on the seized products. By that time Defendant No. 2 arrived in the said premises and started shouting at us and he took away all the paper, order and also pushed away from to said premises.

Thereafter, we reached local police station in the area of Defendant No. 2. We informed the said local police that the Defendant No. 2 snatched our paper and pushed us from the aforesaid premises. In view of the above the said local police agree to visit at the premises of Defendant No. 2. After reaching there we found that nobody was there in the said premises therefore the said police called the Defendant no. 2 and informed about the abovementioned facts and the said Defendant no. 2 informed the said police to collect the snatched papers from the premises of Defendant no. 1 only.

In view of the above facts mentioned herein I could not execute the said order upon the Defendant No. 2. Thereafter we reached local police station in the area of Defendant no. 1 we met Mohammed A. M (S.I) we explained them about the above matter and also Defendant No. 1's conduct during our visit at his shop premises. We then proceeded to shop premises of Defendant no. 1 and met their father of Defendant no. 1 and noticed that Defendant no. 1 has removed impugned product which were found during my visit at the shop premises. I also saw security cameras installed at the Defendant No. 1's premises.”

2. This requires the swiftest judicial action.

3. Hence, issue notice under Rule 9 of the Bombay High Court (Contempt of Court) Rules, 1994 to the Defendants, returnable on 26 July 2016, to show cause why action in contempt should not be taken against them.

4. The injunction previously granted is to continue until further orders.

5. The papers have been served. An Affidavit of Service to that effect is on record. The Defendants cannot, by returning these papers, claim that they were not served. It was their responsibility to receive these papers when duly served.

6. In view of this conduct, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is directed to once again visit the site, i.e, Kannampurth Tower, Main Road, Edavannappara, Pallipadi, Pathanapuram Malapuram, Kerala 673639, to take physical and actual possession of these premises, and to seal them. The police authorities concerned are directed to render assistance to the Court Receiver. They are to act on an authenticated copy of this order. They will depute a reasonable number of police personnel, constables and staff to accompany the Receiver.

7. Let a further report be placed on 26 July 2016.

8. In the meantime, in order to ensure the attendance of the Defendants in this Court, Registry to issue summonses to all three Defendants, returnable on 26 July 2016 at 11.00 a.m These summonses must make it clear that should the Defendants fail to attend, further steps to compel their attendance will be taken, including, issuance of a warrant, bailable or non-bailable.