: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.202 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3811 OF 2008 Ahuja Bulk Carriers ..Petitioner. Vs. Shri R.J. Gawaskar & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr.Ashish Kamath i/b.M/s.V. Deshpade & Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 4TH JULY, 2008 DATED : 4TH JULY, 2008 DATED : 4TH JULY, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : No case for contempt arises. The order dated 16.6.2008 merely states that the Petitioner is at liberty to approach the bank for the one time settlement and records the statement on behalf of the bank that a meeting was fixed on 18.6.208 to consider the one time settlement. 2. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 18.6.2008 which suggests a contention that the bank was bound to consider the application of the OTS and grant the same if the Petitioner complies with the same. That is not the purport of : 2 : the order dated 16.6.2008. It is not as if the bank had agreed to even apply the one time settlement scheme. The letter dated 19.6.2008 addressed by the bank stated that the scheme was valid only upto 30.6.2007 and that the Government of Maharashtra had issued guidelines for settlement under the OTS superceding the earlier guidelines, which was not accepted by the bank and that therefore there is no OTS scheme in force. 3. Even assuming that the contention of the bank is incorrect, the remedy of the Petitioner is to enforce his rights, if any, under the scheme. There is no contempt of the order dated 16.6.2008. The Contempt Petition is therefore dismissed. 4. Mr.Kamath presses for costs. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ***