1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.400 OF 2007 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.62 OF 2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .... Petitioners Vs. M. Karthikeyan & Ors. .... Respondents Shri M. Shukla i/b M/s. Desai & Diwanji for the Petitioners. Shri A.D. Shetty for Respondent No.3. Shri M.Y. Dhuri for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 7. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JUNE 15, 2010 P.C: 1. This petition by the New India Assurance Company Limited complains of disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 2-2-2007 whereby this Court had directed that the ad-interim arrangement directed by the trial Court shall operate and the parties would abide by that arrangement. The learned trial Court, while directing the arrangement by its order dated 8-6-2005, observed that the 2 defendants had the right to peacefully demonstrate outside all the plaintiffs' premises but the defendants had no right to prevent the ingress and egress of any of the plaintiffs' officers, staff, customers and that they shall not obstruct the plaintiffs' business management or administration or stick any posters in the plaintiffs' premises. After this order was continued by this Court by order dated 2-2-2007, on 9-10-2007, the respondents, led by respondent No.8, allegedly misbehaved with the Chairman and Managing Director in a rude way by holding his collar and shouted slogans after forcing their entry into the cabin of the Chairman and Managing Director. Therefore, according to the petitioners, this act on the part of the respondents amounts to wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court confirming the order passed by the trial Court. The petitioners had also reported the incident to the police and seems to have initiated appropriate disciplinary proceedings against respondent Nos.1 to 7. 2. The matter came up for hearing before this Court from time to time. All the respondents have filed their replies and also affidavits and additional affidavits tendering 3 unconditional apology and praying for dropping of these contempt proceedings. 3. I have heard the counsel for parties. In the interest of industrial peace, the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents is accepted and the contempt proceedings are dropped. It is hoped that in the same spirit, the petitioner-management would consider the memorials of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 against their dismissal which may be pending before the competent authorities. The petitioners would also consider whether in these circumstances, it would be appropriate to proceed further with the criminal prosecutions or disciplinary proceedings. The petition is disposed by accepting the apology of the respondents. Needless to say, the apology may not be construed as admission of guilt by the respondents in the criminal cases pending against them. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)