: 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.370 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5732 OF 2008 Charu K. Mehta ..Petitioner. Vs. Mr.Vijay K. Mehta & Ors. ..Respondents/ Contemnors. And Mithun H. Mehta & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Akhil Sibal with Mr. H.V.Thakore i/b.M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr.D.D.Madon, Senior Counsel with Mr.Kunal Vajani i/b.M/s.Wadia Gandy & Co. for Respondent nos.1, 2 and 5. Mrs.J.N.Shah i/b.D.Shah & Co. for Respondent no.3. Mr.Raj Patel with Mr.Shane Sopeco i/b.M/s.Hariani & Co. for Respondent nos.11 and 12. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 20TH OCTOBER, 2008 DATED : 20TH OCTOBER, 2008 DATED : 20TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : In the facts of the present case, I am not inclined to take any action for Contempt of Court. The charge against Respondent nos. 1 to 5 is that they disobeyed the directions and order dated 9.9.2008 by entering into a financial transaction without the prior permission of the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. : 2 : 2. The relevant portion of the said order dated 9.9.2008 which is alleged to have been contravened, reads as under :- (i) The operative part of the first paragraph of the impugned decision will now read thus : "Respondent nos.1 to 9, the trustees shall not take any policy decision and shall not enter into any financial transaction with regard to the trust without prior approval of the JCC till further orders." (ii) Rest of the order remains as it is." 3. It is alleged that a cheque in the sum of Rs.23,90,026/- was signed by Respondent no.1. The said cheque was drawn For Lilavati Hospital & Research Centre in favour of Radhakrishna Catering Hospitality Services (P) Ltd. The payee, it is a common ground, supplies linen and certain catering services to the hospital. 4. The order does not bar Respondent nos.1 to 5 from merely issuing cheques. It is however submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the entire order properly construed, implies the same. : 3 : If that is so, it is for the Petitioner to seek a clarification of the order. 5. Even assuming that there is any ambiguity, on that ground invoking jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act is not warranted. It is true that in paragraph 20 of the said order, it is stated :- "In the first place, it is common ground that the petitioners are not authorised signatories of the trust." The petitioners therein were Respondent nos.1 to 5 in this Contempt Petition. Mr.Madon stated that this is an error. If it is, it is for the parties to have the same corrected. I have proceeded on the footing that there is no error. The Petitioner fairly admitted that this appears to be a mistake in the order and that in fact the Petitioner no.1 therein i.e. Respondent no.1 in the present petition, is an authorised signatory of the trust. : 4 : Thus, Respondent no.1 committed no contempt by signing the cheque, as there was no order preventing him from doing so. 6. There is no specific pleading in the Contempt Petition as to whether Respondent nos.1 to 5 had entered into a financial transaction with Radhakrishna Hospitality Services P. Ltd. The mere issuance of a cheque would not necessarily mean that the transaction in respect whereof the cheque was issued was entered into by Respondent nos.1 to 5. 7. Added to this, is the fact that the said transaction and the payment had been approved by one of the administrators appointed by the Apex Court. 8. Thus, even assuming that technically there is any breach of the order, I see no warrant to punish the Respondents in respect thereof. 9. In view thereof, I have not permitted Mr.Madon to raise the other contentions. The Contempt Petition is therefore dismissed. : 5 : ***