1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.7 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO.53 of 2006 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.817 OF 2004 Dynamic Logistics Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. G.Ramachandram Srikanth Manager of ICICI Limited ...Respondent Mr.C.J.Sawant, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Rishabh Shah i/b Raval Shah & Co.for the Petitioner Mr.Dinyar Madan, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr.Faizal Sayyed a/w Mr.Swayam Chopda i/b M.K.Ambalal & Co. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.A.Y.Bookwala, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr.Kalpesh Parekh i/b M/s.Pragna Thakkar & Co. for respondent no.3 Mr.Kalpesh Parekh i/b M/s.P.Thakkar & Co. for respondent no.4. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : DECEMBER 7, 2009 P.C. 1 I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of the contempt petition. I have heard the learned senior Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents who are the contemnors. I have also heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondents. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 2 The breach alleged in this contempt petition of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 16th February 2006 in Appeal No.53 of 2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that in 2 terms of the order passed by the Division Bench, the original documents deposited by the petitioner with the 1st and 2nd respondents were not returned. 3 When this contempt petition came up before this court on 24th March 2009, the learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents made a statement that the original documents deposited by the petitioner with them will be deposited with this Court within a period of two weeks from that date. Accordingly, certain original documents have been deposited by the 1st and 2nd respondents. 4 On 3rd November 2009, when this contempt petition came up before this court the parties were permitted to take up inspection of the original documents. Accordingly, inspection was taken. 5 After the inspection of the documents was taken ,the first grievance made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that the transfer deeds relating to the shares have not been deposited by the 1st and 2nd respondents with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. He stated that except the transfer deeds, the other documents have been deposited by the 1st and 2nd respondents. On 12th November 2009, when this grievance was made, the learned senior counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents stated that the transfer deeds were never in the custody of the 1st and 2nd respondents. However, the said respondents expressed willingness to give an indemnity as regards the said transfer deeds. 3 6 The only other grievance made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was that in terms of the order of the Division Bench, a deed of release was not executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents stated that necessary deed will be executed by the second respondent. 7 It must be stated that the second respondent has executed the deed of release dated 2nd December 2009 in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent has also executed a deed of indemnity dated 2nd December 2009 in favour of the petitioner. The advocate on record appearing for the second respondent has handed over the deed of indemnity as well as the deed of release executed by the second respondent to the Advocate on record for the petitioner. 8 The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner made a grievance that in view of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 the deed of release will require registration. The learned counsel for the first and second respondents submitted that a mortgage was created by the petitioner by way of deposit of title deeds and the title deeds have been already deposited with the Prothonotary and Senior Master and hence, the registration of the said deed is not required. 9 However, in this petition ,it is not necessary to decide the question whether the deed of release requires compulsory 4 registration. Suffice it to say that a substantial compliance has been made by the first and second respondents with the order of the Division Bench by depositing the original documents with the Prothontary and Senior Master and by executing a deed of indemnity as well as a deed of release in favour of the petitioner. 10 The learned senior counsel for the third respondents submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to receive the custody of the documents in view of the rights created in favour of the third and fourth respondents. He submitted that an application was made by the third and fourth respondents before the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The prayer made in the said application was for issuing a letter of request to the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court for handing over original title deeds and shares to the said respondents. By order dated 23rd November 2009, the said application has not been entertained by the Recovery Officer by directing the said respondents to seek relief from this Court. His submission is that unless appropriate clarification is issued by this Court, the Appellate Authority will not grant any relief to the third and fourth respondents in an appeal which may be preferred by the said respondents against the order of the Recovery Officer. 11 The contempt alleged is against the first and second respondents. The third and fourth respondents are neither necessary nor proper parties to this petition. Hence, no adjudication can be made on the grievance made by the third and fourth 5 respondents in this petition and it is for the said respondents to adopt appropriate proceedings for enforcing their alleged rights and for challenging the order passed by the Recovery Officer. 12 As there is a substantial compliance made by the first and second respondents with the order passed by this Court, this is not a case where an action against the first and second respondents under Contempt of Courts Act,1971 can be taken. 13 Hence, the contempt petition is disposed of. The Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to hand over the custody of the original documents to the petitioner on expiry of period of one week after the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced by the petitioner. JUDGE