LRS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 2551 OF 2008. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.32 OF 2009. Dr Paresh M Desai and Ors ..Petitioners. Vs. Mr S. K. Bhatt & Ors ..Respondents. Mr Sanjay Upadhyay Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr Virag Tulzapurkar with Ms Sneha Phene and Ms Rajni Devkar for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Mr K. V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND A.R. JOSHI,JJ. A.R. JOSHI,JJ. A.R. JOSHI,JJ. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2009. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. This petition is filed as a writ petition and some of the reliefs claimed are under the Companies Act, 1956. One of the reliefs claimed is that the Respondent should be sentenced for committing contempt of this Court for violating the orders passed by this Court. There are also prayers for seeking to recall letters by the respondents written to the police on 21.8.2006. 2. The writ petition on the face of it, is not maintainable as the writ petition would not lie for the reliefs claimed against the private persons. 3. We entertained the petition and gave hearing to the petitioner and his counsel only to satisfy ourselves as to whether any contempt has been committed by the respondents, as to see, whether prima facie any contempt was committed by the respondents or not. 4. We have heard the learned counsel in detail. The order was passed by this Court on 6.6.2002 on an application under Section 391 of the Companies Act. 5. The case of the Petitioner is that inspite of this order on prorata basis his shares were not purchased by the respondents. This is also disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondents who submit that he was even issued the cheques which he has refused. The petitioner has himself annexed a letter dated 16.2.2008 in which he wrote back to the respondents when he received cheques. These cheques were retained by him but he has mentioned in his letter that he is not going to encash them and he would keep them as proof as the respondents allegedly had robbed him of his 1800 shares. May be there is genuine dispute between the petitioner and the respondents, may be there is even a criminal intent but we do not find that there has been any wilful disobedience of the order of the court. For these reasons we do not find any merit in this petition. Petition is dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, Application No. 32 of 2007 does not survive, same is disposed of accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (BILAL NAZKI,J.) (BILAL NAZKI,J.) (BILAL NAZKI,J.)