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 ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.151 OF 2007 PETITION NO.151 OF 2007 PETITION NO.151 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2045 OF 2006 PETITION NO.2045 OF 2006 PETITION NO.2045 OF 2006 N. Lookmanji Mithaiwala Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioners V/s. Parvez Khodiyar Raisi & Ors. ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.51 OF 2008 PETITION NO.51 OF 2008 PETITION NO.51 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2045 OF 2006 PETITION NO.2045 OF 2006 PETITION NO.2045 OF 2006 Pervez Khodiyar Raisi ...Petitioner V/s. N. Lookmanji Mithaiwala Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.D. Madon with Mr.H.V. Kode i/b. Mr. S.A. Sawant for the Petitioners in Contempt Petition No.151 of 2007 and for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Contempt Petition No.51 of 2008. Mr.Girish Godbole with Mr.A.A. Joshi and Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. L.J. Law for Respondent No.1 in Contempt Petition No.151 of 2007 and for the Petitioner in Contempt Petition No.51 of 2008. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 22nd October, 2008 : 22nd October, 2008 : 22nd October, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Having considered the arguments of both the sides, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for invoking contempt action in the respective Petitions. The grievance of the parties is about non compliance of the terms agreed upon on the basis of which the Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court. 2 2. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the respondent No.3 has not paid the amount payable to the contractors as per his obligation. The respondent No.3 on the other hand relies on communications between the parties dated 26th May, 2007, 2nd June, 2007 and 14th June, 2007 to contend that as and when demand was made by the writ petitioners, amount was made over to the concerned persons. The respondent No.3 in the first instance paid Rs.4,00,000/- on 2nd June, 2007 and subsequently Rs.2,00,000/- each on 2nd June, 2007 and 14th June, 2007. The fact that such payment has been made and received is not in dispute. 3. According to the writ petitioners the respondent No.3 was liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- which is specified in clause (6) of the consent minutes of order. This argument cannot be countenenced. In as much as, the obligation of respondent No.3 was to pay to the contractors and architect as and when such demand was to be made by the concerned contractor or architect. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that in spite of such demand the respondent No.3 failed and neglected to pay the amount so demanded. As aforesaid, the respondent No.3 paid the amount in instalments as and when demanded and there is 3 nothing on record to suggest that in spite of demand by the writ petitioners for further amount, the respondent No.3 has failed and neglected to pay the same. 4. Insofar as grievance regarding non-compliance of clause (8) of the minutes of order by the respondent No.3, that grievance clearly overlooks the fact that the building in question has already collapsed. As and when the respondent No.3 would redevelop the property, the writ petitioner may be free to assert that she would be entitled to be provided with permanent accommodation in terms of the said clause. It is not necessary for this Court to examine as to whether the writ petitioner is in fact entitled to such relief in terms of clause (8), in view of the fact that the arrangement agreed upon between the parties is without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the pending proceedings before the Small Causes Court. All questions in that behalf will have to be considered in appropriate proceedings, in the event the respondent No.3 proceeds to redevelop the property and declines to offer permanent accommodation to the writ petitioners in terms of clause (8) in the redeveloped building. 5. I am of the view that this is not a fit case for proceeding with the contempt action on the 4 allegation of non-compliance of clauses (3), (6) and (8) of the minutes of the order in question. 6. Insofar as Contempt Petition filed by respondent No.3 against the writ petitioners is mainly on the allegation that the writ petitioners proceeded with the demolition work of 3rd and 4th floor without appointing the named architect in terms of clause (3) of the minutes of order. The fact that the writ petitioners proceeded with the demolition work of 3rd and 4th floor without appointing the named architect is not any serious dispute. Indeed, the writ petitioners have not been able to justify the circumstances in which they unilaterally caused demolition of the 3rd and 4th floor of the building without consulting Mr.Shrikhande, the named architect. Even so in the fact situation of the present case, I see no propriety in precipitating the contempt action merely on account of this lapse. 7. All other questions on merits of the claim interse between the parties will have to be addressed in appropriate civil or such other proceedings as may be pending or to be filed between the parties. 8. Both the Petitions are dismissed. 5 [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]