IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.232 OF 2008 M/s. Supreme Printers & Laminators Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner. v. Shri Rahul Inamdar & Ors. ...Respondents. None For the Petitioner. Mr.P.S.Dani, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 22, 2010 P.C. 1 None for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. He points out that on 4th December, 2009, both the parties had made the statement before this Court that the orders of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies to remove the seal put by the bank would be removed on 8th December, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. On behalf of the respondent no.2, affidavit of its employee Sandip Jadhav has been filed, which shows that on the relevant date, parties went to the spot and the bank officers wanted to remove the seal as per the direction but the petitioner did not allow them to remove the seal alleging that he wants to confirm whether any theft has been committed from inside the premises. According to the bank, question of theft from inside the premises by the bank or its employees would not arise because lock on - 2 - the premises was of the petitioner and only bank had put the seal and which was directed to be removed. It is contended that petitioner has not allowed the respondents to comply with the direction. There is no response even though in the reply affidavit, the petitioner has tried to explain his conduct. In view of the circumstances placed by the respondents on record and in view of the fact that, none is present for the petitioner, it appears that petitioner is no more interested in prosecuting this contempt petition. 2 In view of the above circumstances, contempt petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)