... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.101 OF 2006 ........................................................... OFFICE NOTES, OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF CORAM, APPEARANCES, COURT’S COURT’S OR JUDGES ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ORDERS AND REGISTRAR’S ORDERS ........................................................... Mr S.G. Rajput for the Petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 16, 2006. : MARCH 16, 2006. : MARCH 16, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The grievance made in this Petition is that during the attachment of the property effected under the orders of this court was in operation, the Respondent No.1 has sold the property to the Respondent No.2. That grievance can be addressed if the Petitioner was to take recourse to appropriate remedy in the attachment proceedings as said. As alternative remedy is available to the Petitioner to correct mischief caused by the Respondent, the question of entertaining the Contempt Petition does not arise. Disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to take recourse to civil or criminal action, as may be, permissible in law. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE