1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2008 Shree Usha Complex Co-Operative Hsg. Scy. Ltd. ..Petitioners. Vs. Dinesh Muktinath Sharma & Ors.. … Respondents. ..... Mr. Sandesh Deshpande, for the Petitioners. Mr.A.R. Patil, AGP for Respondent No.4. --- CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 28 th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. It is stated that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were proceeded for some criminal offences and apprehending their arrest for commission of alleged non bailable offence they apply for bail before the Sessions Court, Mumbai. 2. During the course of bail application they filed an affidavit in which a statement was made that they would comply with certain requisition including construction of compound wall and plantation of some trees. 3. Alleging that these constitutes an undertaking to the Court and therefore there is a civil contempt because the obligations undertaken were not fulfilled, that this Petition alleging civil contempt is filed. 4. With the assistance of Shri Deshpande, appearing on behalf of 2 the Petitioners, I have perused the Petition and annexures thereto. Admittedly, the Petitioners before me is a Co-Operative Housing Society of Flat purchasers. They have purchased flats from one M/s Sai Construction. Partners of the same are Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Admittedly, obligations undertaken towards flat purchasers are those set out in the Maharashtra Ownership Flats(Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. 5. Merely because some criminal proceedings were launched and Respondent No.1 applied for anticipatory bail and filed an affidavit before the Sessions Court that cannot be basis for civil contempt. I fail to understand as to how during the hearing of an anticipatory bail application, filing an affidavit and making any statement therein would without anything more constitute an undertaking to the Court below. The use of word “undertaking” by itself in the affidavit is not conclusive. There is nothing in the Order passed by the Sessions Judge to that effect. In any event, the said undertaking can be enforced by the Society and the flat purchasers by instituting proceedings under the same enactment under which they purchased flats and got other benefits. In such circumstances, finding that this Contempt Petition is gross abuse of process of this Court, it is dismissed. No costs. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 3