C.O.C.P. No. 802 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.O.C.P. No. 802 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 2, 2011 Food Corporation of India …..Petitioner Vs. Shri Naresh Kumar …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.K.Jindal, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This contempt petition has been filed by Food Corporation of India- petitioner for punishing the respondent for having committed the contempt of Court by willful disobeying the order dated January 23, 2007 which reads as follows:- “FCI Vs. M/s Aggarwal @ Co. through Shri Naresh Aggarwal and another. C.O.C.P. No. 802 of 2007 [2] Present:- Shri K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Notice of motion to the respondents for April 23, 2007. Notices dasti only. In the meantime, respondent No.1 M/s Aggarwal & Company shall extend the bank guarantee. However, the said bank guarantee shall not be encashed by the appellant Corporation. Respondent No.2 Punjab and Sind Bank is also directed not to release the bank guarantee to respondent No.1, till further orders. January 23, 2007 Sd/-Viney Mittal, Judge.” A perusal of the abovesaid order indicates that the respondent- contemner had been given an interim direction to extent the bank guarantee with a further direction that the said bank guarantee shall not be encashed by the petitioner- Corporation. Simultaneously a direction had been given to the Bank not to release the bank guarantee to respondent M/s Aggarwal @ Company. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the abovesaid direction, Bank guarantee was not extended. In the reply field by the respondent it has been explained that the implication of order dated January 23, 2007 could not be understood by the respondent as he had lost his eye sight because of diabetes and was in deep depression because of sudden attack of diabetes on his eye sight which C.O.C.P. No. 802 of 2007 [3] had paralyzed his total business. But the order has been complied subsequently and now both the bank guarantees are lying with the bank have not been encashed either by the Food Corporation of India or the respondent. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there has not been willful disobedience of the order but on account of the circumstances explained the compliance had been delayed. No ground is made out for initiating the contempt proceedings. Dismissed. February 2, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE