1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO 401 OF 2008 Shri. Narayanrao Raosaheb Jadhav .. Petitioner V/s. 1. Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Advocate .. Respondent Shri. Narayanrao Raosahed Jadhav, Petitioner in person Coram : R.M. Savant, J. Date : 26th February, 2009. P.C.: 1. The above Contempt Petition is directed against Shri. S.M. Gorwadkar, Advocate, who was appearing in Writ Petition No 9184 of 2007 filed by the Petitioner, impugning the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 101 of the Co- operative Societies Act in Revision Application No. 169 of 2006. 2. The contempt alleged against Shri. Gorwadkar is on the basis that Shri. Gorwadkar appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 made a submission that an amount of Rs. 15 lacs is due and payable by the Petitioner. The said submission, according Rma CP2464208260209.sxw 2 to the Petitioner, is false and made with an intention to mislead the Court. The said submission is recorded in Para 5 of the order dated 17.12.2007 of S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. disposing of the petition. It is the case of the Petitioner that on the basis of said statement, the Court had directed the Petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- which otherwise the Petitioner was not liable to deposit. 3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.12.2007, the Petitioner had filed an L.P.A. However, the said L.P.A had to be withdrawn on 25.06.2008 in view of the fact that by that time, the Divisional Joint Registrar had on remand decided the said Revision Application filed by the Petitioner against the order passed under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Petitioner has now filed a fresh Writ Petition No. 5334 of 2008 impugning the order passed by the Revisional Authority which petition is pending for admission. 4. The said order of S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. dated 17.12.2007 records the statement / submission of Shri. Gorwadkar, the said Rma CP2464208260209.sxw 3 order also records the statement of Shri. D.J. Bhanage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner which statement is made on instructions, that the Petitioner would deposit a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- in addition to the sum already deposited, within four weeks, in my view, assuming that the said statement / submission of Shri. Gorwadkar that an amount of Rs. 15 lacs is due and payable by the Petitioner is incorrect, no case for invoking the contempt jurisdiction is made out. The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.M. Savant, J) Rma CP2464208260209.sxw