1 CONP23.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 23 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 307 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Arun Kumar Ganpati Nayak. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 24 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 278 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Mukund Kumar Shankarbhai Patel. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 31 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 480 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Bharatbhai Suman Bhai Patel. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 32 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 293 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Divyesh V. Nagda. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. 2 CONP23.10.sxw AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 33 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 268 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Badal Manish Agarwal. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 34 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 269 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Mohd. Shahedulhaq Siddiqui. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 35 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 284 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. B. Lakshmi Narayana. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 36 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 309 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Venkata Ramarao Alapati. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. 3 CONP23.10.sxw AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 37 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 294 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Vipul K. Patel. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 38 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 291 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Narayana Setty Kopparapu. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 44 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 274 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Swaminathan Sivashanmugam. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 45 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 276 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. S.B. Thanga Krishnan. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. 4 CONP23.10.sxw AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 46 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 310 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Syed Rahmath Ali. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 314 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. R. Arasu. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 48 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 317 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Sohil Ajitbhai Oza. . ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 51 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 266 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Kalpesh I. Shah. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. 5 CONP23.10.sxw AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 292 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Govind J. Kabara. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 53 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 287 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Vikas Pandey. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 62 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 272 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Deepa Rani. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 63 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 262 OF 2010 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Hemanth Rao. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. 6 CONP23.10.sxw AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 70 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 271 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Mr. Perikala Yugandhar Kumar. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 93 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 264 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Madireddi Dorababu, A.P. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 283 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. S. Ambujam. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 95 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 265 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Vaishali Kalpesh Shah. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. 7 CONP23.10.sxw AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 97 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 263 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Velagapudi Venkata Rama Rao S/o. Late Nageshwara Roa-Batti. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.110 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 282 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. S. Selvaraj. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 135 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 270 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Samira Sajid Virani. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 136 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 311 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. Sanjay Dixit. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. 8 CONP23.10.sxw AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 137 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 285 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. ... Petitioners. V/s. V. Dharmamurthi. ... Respondent/ Contemnor. Ms. Jaymala Ostwal i/b. J.J. Associates for the Petitioner. None for the Defendants. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 18th FEBRUARY 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The Petitioners in the aforesaid Petitions is common. The Respondents are different. It may not be necessary to deal with each and every Petition date wise as the point involved in all these Petitions is common. The question to be decided is whether non compliance of orders passed in application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short said Act) after the passing of the Award at the ad-interim stage of the said application and on final disposal of the said application amounts to Contempt of Court. 9 CONP23.10.sxw 2. For the sake of convenience, I wish to deal with facts mentioned in Contempt Petition No.23 of 2010. It is noticed that the Petitioners and the Respondents respectively adopted arbitration as a method to resolve the dispute between them. Arbitration Award was passed on 20th November 2008. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed a Petition under Section 9 of the said Act. On 24th April 2009, the learned Single Judge passed an order directing the Respondent to disclose his assets. This order was passed at the ad-interim hearing of the said application. The said Petition was finally disposed of on 25th June 2009. The Respondent was directed to furnish/secure the amount as awarded from the date of receipt of the order within eight weeks. This would mean that the order passed at the ad-interim stage got merged in the final order and after passing of the final order, the Respondent was not required to disclose the assets. 3. Despite the Award dated 20th November 2008 becoming executable as per the provisions of law till today, the Petitioners have not taken steps to execute the Award. The Petitioners have not furnished any explanation as to why steps have not been taken to execute the Award. 4. It was argued that non-compliance of order dated 24th April 2009 (passed at the ad-interim hearing of the aforesaid application) and 25th June 2009 amounts to contempt. I have considered this submission. In my view, on account of 10 CONP23.10.sxw passing of order dated 25th June 2009 thereby disposing of the said Petition, order dated 24th April 2009 merged into order dated 25th June 2009. Hence, the question is whether non- furnishing of security or securing the amount awarded in the Award amounts to contempt. 5. The Respondent was directed to secure the amount mentioned in the Award within the period of eight weeks giving maximum latitude to the Respondent, the Respondent was expected to furnish security or secure amount by end of August 2009. The direction of the Court to the Respondent to furnish security by a particular date does not mean that the Award cannot be executed. It was not at all expected of the Petitioners to wait for getting a security from the Respondent, the Petitioners could have very well taken steps to execute the Award once it became executable. 6. As mentioned earlier, if the Petitioners have not executed the Award since 2008, it is clear that the Petitioners were indolent in exercising their right to receive the monies by following the due process. In the face of this indolent attitude on the part of the Petitioners, it would be difficult to accept the contention of the Petitioners that this Court should exercise its powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 7. In my view, the present Petition is mis-conceived and the conduct of the Petitioners dis-entitles them to get any relief under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 11 CONP23.10.sxw 8. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am not inclined to exercise powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in this Petition. 9. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, each of the Petition cannot be admitted and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)