IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (L) NO.88 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1555 OF 2009 Shri Partha Ghosh & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Gamav Joshi, Counsel with Mr. Jitendra Jain and Mr. Girish Dave i/b M/s. Dave & Girish & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. D.D.Madon, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Gautam S. Mehta for Respondent No.1. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: 15th September , 2009 P.C. : 1. By an order of the Division Bench dated 18th August 2009, the following statement of Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1-the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, was recorded. “However, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 very fairly submits that the complete report of AFI 2003 as far as it relates to the Petitioners and any other document which is to be used against Petitioners during the enquiry will be furnished to the Petitioners within two weeks from today.” In view of this statement, the Petition was not pressed and was disposed of. 2. The grievance of the Petitioners, which led to the institution of the Contempt Petition, was that the statement made before the Division Bench on 18th August 2009, was not complied with fully and the complete report of the Annual Financial Inspection of 2003, in so far as it relates to the Petitioners, has not been furnished. 3. Now, it is common ground that the Annual Financial Inspection (AFI) was conducted by the Reserve Bank of India with whom the record is maintained. In order to obviate any controversy, the Learned Counsel for the First Respondent was asked by the Court on the previous date of hearing on whether the First Respondent would be willing to address a communication to the Reserve Bank of India, seeking a complete extract of the Report from the AFI of 2003, in so far as it pertains to the Petitioners. Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 had sought an adjournment to take instructions. 4. In pursuance of the hearing which took place before this Court, a letter was addressed on 11th September 2009 to the General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India, in the Department of Banking Supervision by Ms. Vandana Nagpal, Director (Discipline) of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Respondent No.2), seeking copies of the complete report of AFI 2003, pertaining to the Respondents. The Deputy General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India, in the Department of Banking Supervision, has, in response thereto, addressed a communication dated 14th September 2009, enclosing 6 sets of documents, including the relevant portion of the Annual Inspection Report of the erstwhile Global Trust Bank in the year 2002-2003, in so far as it relates to the statutory auditors, Price Waterhouse and Company. The First Petitioner, the Court is informed is a partner while the Second Petitioner was an employee of Price Waterhouse and Company (PWC). PWC were the auditors of Global Trust Bank for the material period. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 has, on instructions, handed over a complete set of papers that has been received from the Reserve Bank of India to the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, together with the letters dated 11th September 2009 and 14th September 2009. In view of this development, which has taken place in the meantime, it is not necessary for this Court to pursue recourse to the Contempt Jurisdiction. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that in the event the Petitioners contend that a full copy of the underlying material including the AFI Report has not been furnished to the First Respondent by the Reserve Bank of India, the Petitioners would take recourse to the remedies which are available in law. 6. On the request of Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, it is, however, recorded that the submission of Respondent No.1 has been that, there was no breach of the order of the Division Bench, since all the documents, as required, have already been handed over. 7. The First Respondent has stated before the Court that the entire extract of the Annual Financial Inspection of 2003, in so far as it pertains to the Petitioners, which was received by the First Respondent from the Reserve Bank of India has been handed over and no part of what was received has been withheld. 8. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to pursue the exercise of the Contempt Jurisdiction. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J)