IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 30.11.2010 COCP No.1813 of 2010 Hassan Mohd. ...Petitioner Versus Mr. Sehgal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) In terms of the earlier order dated 29.11.2010, respondent No.2 namely Mr. Balbir, Manager, Shri Ram Investments Ltd. is present in Court. Mr. Soni has filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances in respect of release of vehicle and also tendered apology for not complying with the order passed by this Court. It is further stated that the deponent is ready to release the vehicle, as and when the petitioner approaches the agency and has also directed M/s Triumph Auto engineering Pvt. Ltd., Bhondasi, District Gurgaon, with whom the vehicle is parked, to release the vehicle. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the vehicle offered for release is without tyres, which were replaced four days earlier to the date when the possession of the vehicle was taken and the Company is also not giving the Battery and registration certificate of the vehicle. In a contempt petition, such question cannot be examined. It is for the petitioner to seek remedy as may be available to him in respect of loss of part, if any, in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioner to take possession of the vehicle in the manner, it is being offered or to take possession after establishing the loss in such vehicle in accordance with law. With the said observations, the present contempt petition is disposed of. 30.11.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE