kbp 1 93-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.93 OF 2009 WITH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.304 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITIN (L) NO.1803 OF 2009 Jet Airways (I) Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. National Aviator's Guild & ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.C.U.Singh, Senior Counsel w/.Ms.Sheetal Sabnis a/w.Ms.Ipshita Sen, i/b. M/s.Gagrats, for plaintiff. Mr.J.P.Cama, Senior Counsel a/w.Mr.A.D.Shetty, for respondent. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 17th November, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 2] The breach alleged is of an ad-interim order passed by a Division Bench in a writ petition. My attention has been invited to order dated 14th September, 2009 passed by this Court. In paragraph 3 of the said order, this Court observed thus:- " Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has placed on record a Memorandum of Agreement between the Management of kbp 2 93-09.sxw Jet Airways (India) Ltd. and National Aviator's Guild and the Pilots' Representatives signed on 12th September 2009 at Mumbai. Counsel for the Management while conceding that the exercise of the Contempt Jurisdiction is a matter between the contemnors and the Court, submitted that as a result of the discussions which were held between the representatives of the Union and the Management, the grievance of the Pilots which led to the strike, has been resolved and the agreement between them provides for the withdrawal of the proceedings. Counsel, therefore, submitted that it is entirely for the Court to consider as to whether recourse to the contempt jurisdiction should be adopted." However, by the same order, this Court issued a show cause notice to the respondents to explain as to why the proceedings should not be adopted against them under the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971. 3] There is a reply tendered by the respondents/contemnors. My attention has been invited to what is stated in paragraph nos.2 and 11 of the reply. It is stated that the respondents never had an intention to willfully disobey the order passed by the Division Bench. The respondents have tendered an apology. It must be noted here that after the aforesaid order dated 14th September, 2009 was passed, the main writ petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of as kbp 3 93-09.sxw the same was not pressed by the petitioner. Perusal of the order dated 14th September, 2009 shows that this court had not issued notice in terms of Rule 8 r/w.Rule 9 of the Contempt of Court (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994. 4] As pointed earlier, the main writ petition has been now disposed of as not pressed in view of the settlement between the parties. The breach alleged in this contempt petition is of an ad-interim order passed in the main petition. 5] In the circumstances, this is not a fit case where further steps should be taken either under the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the notice issued to the respondents is discharged. Contempt Petition is disposed of. ( A.S.OKA, J. )