1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.80 of 2011 In Writ Petition No.1125 of 2000 (D) And Writ Petition No.819 of 2001 (D) (Kishore s/o Ganeshlal Jaiswal and another v. Rajesh s/o Ganeshlal Jaiswal) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri A.T. Purohit, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri A.R. Wagh, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 3 st August, 2011 1. Heard Shri Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; and Shri Wagh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. In Writ Petition No.1125 of 2000 filed by the respondent herein. The present petitioners were respondents. The petitioners and the respondent filed a joint pursis dated 30-11-2006 stating therein that they have settled the matter amicably vide registered agreement dated 29-11-2006. In view of the said agreement, the permission was sought by the respondent herein to withdraw the said writ petition, which has been granted by this Court on 4-12- 2006. Clause 6 of the said agreement, according to the 2 petitioners, conferred all rights upon the petitioner No.1 to run the business of CL-III licence and the income derived therefrom was agreed to be distributed between the petitioners and the respondent after deducting the expenditure incurred in respect thereof. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners in this contempt petition that on 1-4-2011, the respondent forcibly entered the shop in question, dispossessed the petitioners from the said shop, and took over the business. The petitioners accordingly lodged the complaint in the Police Station and ultimately they were required to file a criminal complaint. 4. According to the petitioners, the terms of the agreement were accepted by the parties by filing a joint pursis dated 30-11-2006 and in view of that, the respondent herein sought a liberty to withdraw the Writ Petition No.1125 of 2000. The contention is that the terms of the agreement constituted an undertaking on the part of the respondent to permit the petitioner No.1 to run the business exclusively. However, by doing an overt act, the petitioners are dispossessed and are denied the right to do the business in the shop in question. Hence, this amounts to contempt of Court. 5. I have gone through the contents of Clause 6 of the said agreement, upon which the reliance is placed. The said Clause creates the reciprocal obligations upon the parties, namely the petitioners and the respondents. The right to run the business was conferred upon the petitioners, whereas the respondent was entitled to get the profit earned out of the said business after deducting the amount of expenditure. The agreement is silent 3 about the event of committing the breach of the agreement by any of the parties. According to the respondent, the petitioners could not pay the requisite share in the profit and hence they were permitted to do the business in the shop in question by the petitioners. 6. Shri Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Daya Shanker Dubey v. Subhas Kumar, reported in 1992 Cri.L.J. 319, for the proposition that once the order has been passed by the Court not only the plain meaning of the language used is to be considered but also the spirit and the sense in which the order had been passed has also to be kept in mind. It has further been held that if there is some kind of dispute or confusion, then the best way would be in such cases not to circumvent the order but to try as much as possible to comply with it first and then to seek clarification or modification of the order. 7. The next judgment relied upon by Shri Purohit, the learned counsel, is of the Madras High Court in A. Guruprasad v. T. Neelakandan, reported in 1996 Cri.L.J. 1892, for the proposition that the acts which are calculated to undermine the authority of the Court and disturb the confidence of the citizen in the unquestioned effectiveness of its orders will have to be considered as contempt. 8. The last judgment relied upon by Shri Purohit, the learned counsel, is of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dulcie M. Robb v. Mrs. Murid Hyder and others, reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 1051, for the proposition that a recital in a 4 compromise memo if in the nature of an undertaking, the breach of that cannot be ignored by the Court on the ground that it is only a breach of the compromise but not an act of contempt. 9. I have gone through all these judgments. The propositions laid down in the said judgments cannot be disputed. The question involved in this contempt petition is altogether different. The parties are alleging a breach of reciprocal obligations created under the agreement in question. The respondent herein has withdrawn the Writ Petition No.1125 of 2000 accepting such reciprocal obligations. In view of this, the agreement in question cannot constitute an undertaking before this Court, and even if it is considered to be an undertaking, still the non-compliance of reciprocal obligations raises the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in this contempt petition, and the parties are required to be left to adopt all such remedies as are available to them in law in respect of non-compliance, if any, of the reciprocal obligations. 10. In the result, the contempt petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl