IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CONTEMPT CASE NO. 1 7 8 9 OF 2009. Between: Hetero Drugs Limited, Represented by its Director & Authorised Signatory Sri M.Srinivas Reddy, s/o M. Krishna Reddy, aged about 35 years, Hetero House, H.No. 8-3-166/7/1, Erragadda, Hyderabad-500 018. … Petitioner V/s. Sri Vijay Trivedi, M/s. Aastrid International Pvt.Limited, 247-248, Udyog Bhavan, Senawala Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad Counsel for the Respondent : None Appeared THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1 7 8 9 OF 2009 O R D E R : This memorandum of contempt case is filed under section 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for violating the order dated 03-6-2009 passed in I.A.No. 553 of 2009 in O.S.No. 14 of 2008 by the learned II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to direct the second respondent therein to renew the Bank Guarantee dated 10-5-2009 for Rs.28,00,000/- till finalization of the main suit. 2. The Director and Authorised Signatory of the Petitioner Company filed this contempt case with the following averments in brief: It is stated that the petitioner filed OS.No. 14 of 2008 on the file of the Court of II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent herein and also against M/s. Ningbo Renjian Pharmaceutical Chemical Company Limited, China for recovery of the cost of 400 Kgs of GCLE raw material. It is stated that along with the suit, I.A.No. 160 of 2008 was also filed seeking injunction restraining the State Bank of India from releasing payment to M/s. Ningbo Renjhian Pharmaceutical Chemical Company Limited, China for the GCLE raw material supplied. It is stated that the trial court disposed of the application directing the respondent herein and M/s. Ningbo Renjian Pharmaceutical Chemical Company Limited, China to furnish the Bank Guarantee for the value of 4 MTs of GCLE raw material within one week from the date of disposal of the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein, State Bank of India and M/s. Ningbo Renjhian Pharmaceutical Chemical Company Limited, China, filed three separate appeals; CMA.Nos. 283, 296 and 328 of 2008 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that this Court by way of an interim order dated 21-4-2008 directed the respondent herein to furnish the bank guarantee for Rs.28,00,000/-. Accordingly, the respondent herein furnished the bank guarantee for a period of one year i.e., till 09-5-2009. Thereafter, Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were finally dismissed by the High Court on 07-7-2008. 3. It is further stated that in the month of March 2009, the petitioner filed IA.No.553 of 2009 on the file of the Court of II- Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking a direction against the respondent to renew the bank guarantee dated 10-5-2008 till finalization of the suit. It is stated that the said application was contested by the respondent by filing their counter-affidavit. After hearing the matter, the trial court allowed the interlocutory application by an order dated 03-6-2009 directing the respondent to renew the bank guarantee dated 10-5- 2008 for Rs.28,00,000/- till the disposal of the suit. It is further stated that since the bank guarantee expired by 09-5-2009, the petitioner got issued a legal notice on 05-7-2009 calling upon the respondent to renew the Bank guarantee as per the directions of the trial court in IA.No.553 of 2009 dated 03-6-2009. Even though, the said notice was acknowledged by the respondent, they failed to furnish the Bank guarantee till this day. It is also stated that either the petitioner or their counsel are not served with any notice of renewing the bank guarantee. Therefore, the action of the respondent in not renewing the Bank guarantee is nothing but intentional violation of the orders passed by the II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in IA.No.553 of 2009 in OS.No. 14 of 2008. It is also stated that in view of the above circumstances, the respondent has committed a deliberate contempt by not furnishing the bank guarantee even after six months from the date of passing the order. It is also brought to the notice of this court that the respondent has scant respect towards the orders of the trial court and thereby caused serious hardship to the petitioner. The action of the respondent is therefore liable to be punished as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not wish to pursue this contempt case, as he has an effective and alternative remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and that he may be permitted to pursue the said remedy by withdrawing this contempt case. 5. Permission accorded. In the circumstances, the contempt case is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty preserved in the petitioner to file appropriate application and pursue the remedy before the appropriate Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 01-02-2010. I s L COURT HALL NO. 33 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1 7 8 9 OF 2009 CIRCULATION ENTRY No. Date: 01-02-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43