1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.232 of 2008 (Shriram s/o Urkuda Bagle and another v. Arun s/o Maheshwarprasad Shrivastav and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri N.N. Thengre, Advocate for Petitioners. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 26 th June, 2009 1. By this petition, the petitioner alleges that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have committed contempt of this Court by failing to abide by an assurance given in this Court on 15-2-2008 in Criminal Application No.536 of 2008. 2. The said Criminal Application No. 536 of 2008 was filed by respondent No.1. On 15-2-2008, when the matter came up before this Court, the Court ordered issuance of notices and in the last para, it has been observed as under : “Interim protection to the applicant from arrest as he assures to deposit the alleged amount due to respondent No.2.” This criminal application came up before this 2 Court again on 11-9-2008 and was dismissed for want of prosecution, as the counsel for the applicant was absent. It was indicated in the order that since the Court had heard and indicated that the application would not be entertained, the Court had asked the counsel for the applicant whether he would like to withdraw the application. 3. Respondent No.1 herein had filed an application for restoration of Criminal Application No.536 of 2008 by filing Criminal Application No.3501 of 2008, which came to be rejected by order dated 12-11-2008. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since interim protection was granted to respondent No.1 on his assurance to deposit the alleged amount due to the present petitioners and since this amount has not been deposited, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have committed contempt of this Court. 5. Notice before admission was ordered to be issued and it was eventually served by paper publication. 6. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners that for establishing wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, it would be necessary to point out that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were expected to deposit the alleged amount within a particular time frame, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the order 3 dated 15-2-2008 may be defective, it need not be corrected and it can be enforced and for this purpose, he placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others v. Rajendra Singh and another, reported at AIR 2004 SC 4419, and Union of India and others v. Subedar Devassy PV., reported at AIR 2006 SC 909. It seems that the learned counsel for the petitioners is under a mistaken belief that this Court observed that the order dated 15-2-2009 was wrong. There is nothing wrong with the order. All that was pointed out is that since there was no time limit for depositing the amount, the allegation of disobedience can not made unless a time limit was got fixed and flouted by the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and another, reported at AIR 2006 SC 1883, to support his contention that breach of an undertaking given to the Court would amount to civil contempt. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Ramakotaiah and others v. Union of India, reported at AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 55, in which the Supreme Court held that breach of an undertaking given before the Supreme Court would amount to contempt. 4 9. In Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and another, reported at AIR 2004 SC 942, on which the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance, there was a compromise between the parties and minutes of decree were drawn up, in which there was a shcdule of installments to be paid and it was further agreed that in the event of default by the respondents to abide by the said consent terms, the remaining amount shall forthwith become due and payable. 10. Had there been a time fixed for depositing the amount, it would have been possible for the petitioners to maintain a contempt petition upon establishing that the amount was not so paid within the time fixed. Now the assurance to deposit the alleged amount due without fixing an outer date, for securing an interim protection in a matter, which was to be heard, could not be construed to have been disobeyed, merely because the amount has not been paid till the matter had been dismissed. 11. The petition is misconceived. It is rejected. Judge. pdl