{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.320 OF 2009 Syed Latifoddin s/o Nizamoddin PETITIONER VERSUS The Manager Life Insurance Corporation Of India & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. S.S.Kazi, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.L.Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.L.B.Syed, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for R-4 Mr.R.T.Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No.5 Mr.G.D.Kale, Advocate for respondent No.6 & 2-A ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 3rd May 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present contempt petition, the petitioner has prayed to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents as the respondents have not complied the orders of the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed to disburse the assets and debts of deceased Shamimunnisa, as the the petitioner along with other applicants are declared as the Legal Heirs of the deceased in MCA No.3/2003 which was moved u/s {2} 372 of the Indian Succession Act. 2. In MCA No.3/2003 learned trial judge has observed that the application of the applicants and objection petition of objection petitioner No.1, are allowed and succession certificate was issued in respect of securities and debts standing in the name of deceased Shamimunnisa, described in para 9 of the petition, in the name of petitioner No.1, 2, 4 to 7 and objection petitioner No.1 on furnishing security in the sum of Rs.3 lacs and on payment of necessary stamp duty after appeal period is over. 3. It appears that the amount of insurance policy is paid by the insurance company to the nominee whose name was nominated by the deceased. It further appears that certain dues and benefits are lying with respondents No.2, 3 and 6; the amount invested in the Post Office is lying with respondent No.4 and certain amount is lying with respondent No.5, Beed District Central Cooperative Bank. It also appears that as rivals claims were submitted by the applicants as well as objection petitioner, who is husband of the deceased and no shares of the applicants as well as objection petitioner No.1 are decided in the said MCA, the present respondents denied to release the amounts of deceased Shamimunnisa lying with them to her legal heirs. 4. It appears that in response to the notice issued to the respondents, they appeared in the contempt petition and filed their {3} respective replies. These respondents have not disputed that the amount of deceased is lying with them, however as there is no order of any competent court directing them to release a particular amount to the share of a particular person, they have not disbursed the same. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respective respondents. The point requires to be considered in this petition is that if these respondents were not parties to the Miscellaneous Civil Application No.3/2003 and no specific orders are issued that certain acts to be performed by the present respondents, can they be held responsible for disobedience of the order of Court. To this query, this Court must answer in negative for the simple reason that these respondents are admittedly not parties to the proceedings before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, nor any specific directions are issued to perform act against these respondents by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed. In the premise, as no directions are given to the present respondents in respect of disbursement of the amount of the deceased lying with them, it cannot be said that the respondents have disobeyed the orders passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed. 6. In view of this legal aspect, the contempt petition is devoid of any substance. The petitioner is at liberty to adopt any legal remedy / appropriate step available to him in view of the {4} order passed in MCA No.3/2003 for disbursement of the amount lying with present respondents. Contempt petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cp320-09