:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 4 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 368 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 84 & 85 OF 2005 Mr. Sunil Narendranath More ..Petitioner (Org.Rspt.No.4) Vs. 1. Vatsa Corporation Ltd. and ors. ..Respondents Mr. N.D. Desai, C.A. of the petitioner present. Mr. Prakash Naik for respondent no.1. Mrs.S.D. Shinde, APP for respondent no.2. Mr. N.N. Bhandrashete for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. Dated: June 17, 2008. Dated: June 17, 2008. Dated: June 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. We have perused the orders passed earlier in this Contempt Petition from time to time and more particularly the orders dated 4/3/2008 and 27/3/2008. The Manager of respondent no.3-bank Mrs.Jasvinder Kaur Anand has filed two affidavits and in obedience of the order passed by this court on 27/3/2008, Shri Joy Thomas, Managing Director of the said bank has furnished his undertaking as well as unconditional :2: apology for the delay caused from 15/2/2008 to 28/2/2008 in encashing the bank guarantee as per the order passed by this court on 25/9/2006. Mr.Desai, the C.A. of contempt petitioner and original respondent no.4 has addressed us and we have noted from the averments made in the contempt petition memo the grievance of the petitioner regarding the alleged deliberate delay or unexplained delay of 14 days i.e. from 15/2/2008 to 28/2/2008 in encashing the bank guarantee. 2. Though the order passed by this court on 25/9/2006 was communicated by the Registry of this Court to the respondent no.3-bank on 29/9/2006, the bank did not take any steps for almost more than ten days in encashing the bank guarantee and it claims that on 1/10/2006 it received an application from the respondent no.1 and original writ petitioner that it proposed to approach the Apex Court against the order passed by this court on 25/9/2006 and, therefore, the bank did not take any decision on encashing the bank guarantee. The affidavit of the Manager further states that though the letter dated 29/9/2006 was :3: received by the bank, the amount of bank guarantee being sizeable, the Manager had approached the Board of Directors of the Bank for further instructions and before she could receive any decision from the bank, on 1/10/2006 a letter was received by her from the respondent no.1, as noted hereinabove. 3. There is no dispute that on 10/10/2006 the Supreme Court was pleased to pass an ex parte order staying the order passed by this court on 25/9/2005 and the SLP came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 7/1/2008. Again the Registry for the second time addressed a letter dated 22/1/2008 to the respondent no.3-bank for encashing the bank guarantee. Nothing was done till 29/1/2008, on which date the bank claims to have received an intimation that the SLP dismissed was restored. In any case finally the SLP came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 11/2/2008. This court had, therefore, taken cognizance for initiating contempt action against the respondent no.3-bank and, therefore, it directed the Managing Director of the said bank to submit an undertaking, which has been so done, as noted hereinabove. The fact remains that :4: despite the third reminder from the Registry of this court on 14/2/2008, the bank encashed the bank guarantee only on 29/2/2008 and, therefore, there is virtually no explanation for the delay caused from 15/2/2008 to 28/2/2008 in encashing the bank guarantee and the explanation furnished, if any, cannot be accepted, as has been noted by this court in the earlier order. 4. Hence, the bank is guilty of disobedience of the order passed by this court for encashing the bank guarantee and the delay of 14 days caused in encashing the same, after the SLP was dismissed, cannot be condoned. Consequently, the bank is guilty of civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. Section 12 of the said Act deals with the punishment for contempt. Mr. Bhadrashete the learned counsel for the respondent no.3-bank conceded that it shall pay interest on Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) for 14 days at the rate of 10% and the said amount shall be deposited with the :5: Registry of this Court within one week from today and the interest amount, so deposited, shall be invested along with the principal amount. He has also invited out attention to the undertaking and apology submitted by the Managing Director of the said bank. The affidavit states that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the bank or any of its officials to encash the bank guarantee. The affidavit further undertakes that the bank shall not cause delay in encashing bank guarantee given by it and it shall encash and pay the amount immediately on receipt of intimation in that behalf. In these circumstances, the bank has prayed to accept its apology. 6. We are satisfied that in addition to the recovery of interest, ends of justice would be met if the bank is directed to pay a fine and accordingly we direct the bank to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. The fine amount shall be deposited with the Maharastra State Legal Services Authorities within two weeks from today. 7. Contempt Petition is allowed in terms of the :6: above order. (J.H. Bhatia, J.) (J.H. Bhatia, J.) (J.H. Bhatia, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)