0906cp204.09.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.204 OF 2009 IN F.A.NO.608 OF 2003. The Southern Nagpur Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. ..v.. Omprakash s/o Gopuldas Bajaj. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. B.G.Kulkarni, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Jaiswal Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 9th June, 2011. 1. The above contempt petition alleges contempt of the terms of Compromise Petition dated 31st October, 2007 as well as the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 25th of October, 2007 by the respondent herein on the ground that the respondent has retained the amount of Rs.3.5 Crorer which respondent no.10 to the First appeal paid over to the respondent herein on behalf of the petitioner, but has not paid over the same to the petitioner. Without going into unnecessary facts, suffice it to say that the respondent herein was obliged to pay over the said amount of Rs.3.5 Crores to the Party No.4 to the agreement i.e. M/s Dani Constructions for carrying out construction of 56 Units for the petitioner – Society. It appears that after part of the First Appeal was disposed of in terms of the said compromise petition, the petitioner terminated the contract which was awarded to the Party No.4 – M/s Dani Constructions. The 0906cp204.09.odt 2 amount of Rs.3.5 Crores is sought by the petitioner on the ground that the said amount is held by the respondent herein on behalf of the petitioner - Society and the payment to the said M/s Dani Construction was to be made by the respondent on behalf of the Society and also in view of the fact that since the petitioner-Society has terminated the contract of the said M/s Dani Constructions, the respondent herein is obliged to pay over the said amount to the petitioner. In my view, considering the terms of the compromise petition as well as the Memorandum of Understanding, no such specific direction is found in so far as paying over the said amount to the petitioner - Society is concerned. In any event, since the First Appeal is partly disposed in terms of the Compromise Petition and the Memorandum of Understanding, accepting such a contention would amount to modifying the decree which course of action, in my view, is impermissible. 2. It is also required to be noted that there is no dispute in respect of the fact that the petitioner has filed a suit for the recovery of the said amount and also damages. In any event, if the petitioner seeks modification of the decree, it would be open for the petitioner to file an appropriate application for the same. In my view, considering the graveman of the allegation, the invocation of the contempt jurisdiction in the present case is misconceived. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to move an application for modification of the decree, if otherwise permissible in law. JUDGE chute 0906cp204.09.odt 3