... 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 CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.316 OF 2006 PETITION NO.316 OF 2006 PETITION NO.316 OF 2006 Anand Nilkanth Sabnis ...Petitioner Versus Rajendra Satish Sabnis & Anr. ...Respondents Shri Gopal Niras holding for Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Shri A.G.Damle for the Respondent No.1. Shri A.R.Patil, A.G.P for the Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : APRIL 18, 2007. : APRIL 18, 2007. : APRIL 18, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the Advocate appearing for the contemnor. In this Petition, the Petitioner has alleged that the contemnor has committed a breach of an undertaking recorded in the order dated 13th July, 2006 passed by this Court in Civil Application No.216 of 2006 in Appeal From Order No.1101 of 2004. 2. The allegation made in the Contempt Petition is that the contemnor has committed wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court as well as undertaking given by him. The case of the Petitioner is that the contemnor had undertaken to restore the name plate of "Vaishali TV Centre" which was earlier displayed on the suit premises and continue the activity of repair of ... 2 ... electrical items in the suit premises. The order records that an undertaking was given that the contemnor will restore the suit premises in the same form and position as it was when the Agency Agreement was executed in his favour. The order takes a note of the fact that the contemnor had changed the business after execution of the Agreement of Agency and had started the business of sale and service as well as a business of dealership of mobile phones. The order further provides that it will be open for the contemnor to apply to the Court Receiver for permitting him to start additional business and such Application if made, will be decided the Court Receiver. Contempt Petition is filed on the basis of the report of the court receiver dated 04th August, 2006. According to the Petitioner the report indicates that the business of selling cell phones is not discontinued and there was a sign board on the shop in the name and style "Hutch Tele Shop". It is mentioned in the report that there was another board in the name of "Vaishali TV Centre". 3. This Court by order 05th April, 2007 directed the Court Receiver to visit the premises and submit a report to this Court as regards the nature of the present user of the suit premises. Accordingly, on the very day, a clerk in the office of the court receiver ... 3 ... visited the premises in question and has submitted a report. The submission of Shri Warunjikar appearing for the Petitioner was that though the recent report indicates that compliance has been made with the undertaking by the contemnor, the earlier report indicates that the contemnor had committed a breach. Shri Warunjikar further submitted that there is a separate receiver’s report submitted which shows that the contemnor has not complied with the terms and conditions of the agency agreement. 4. Shri Damle appearing for the contemnor has invited my attention to the averments made in the affidavit in reply. He has also invited my attention to affidavit dated 17th April, 2007. 5. In so far as breach of terms and conditions of agency agreement is concerned, there is no specific allegation in this Contempt Petition and there is a separate report submitted by the receiver in that behalf in the Appeal From Order. Therefore, I am not dealing with the said allegation in this Contempt Petition. From the material on record and the report of the receiver, it does appear that the undertaking recorded in the said order dated 13th July, 2006 was not fully complied with by the contemnor. However, the recent ... 4 ... report submitted by the court receiver indicates that now there is a substantial compliance with the undertaking by the contemnor. Moreover, in the affidavit dated 17th April, 2007, the contemnor has stated that the non-compliance reflected in the report of the court receiver dated 04th August, 2006 was not intentional or deliberate. He has tendered an unconditional apology to this Court. 6. In view of the recent report of the court receiver and in view of the apology tendered, it is not necessary to proceed further against the contemnor. The apology tendered by the contemnor is accepted. 7. In the circumstances the notice issued to the contemnor is discharged and Contempt Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE