1 CONPL118.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (LODG.)NO. 118 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 942 OF 2010 Thatikonda Keshav & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Sagar Bidi Works & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar i/b. V.S. Kothari for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER 2010. P.C. :- All office objections stand disposed of. Office to number the Petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. My attention was drawn to order dated 31st August 2010 passed in Arbitration Petition No.942 of 2010. This Arbitration Petition is a dispute between partners and firm M/s. Sagar Bidi Works and Ors. The present Respondents were Respondents in the Arbitration Petition and on the basis of order dated 31st August 2010 it can be observed that these Respondents made a statement through their Advocate before the Court that they have not prevented the Petitioners from participating the 2 CONPL118.10.sxw business and shall not prevent the Petitioners from participating the business. Said statement was accepted and the Petition was accordingly disposed of. According to the Petitioners, the Respondents have violated this order dated 31st August 2010. Hence, the Contempt Petition. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Khandeparkar appearing on behalf of the Petitioners drew my attention to paragraph 15 of the Petition where it is stated that the Petitioners approached the Office of the firm on 3rd September 2010 at about 9.00 a.m. and the said office was noted as closed. Similarly, the three Petitioners reached the office premises at about 12.30 p.m. and the same was noted as closed. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, this amounted to doing an act in violation of the order passed by the Court on 31st August 2010. I am not inclined to accept this submission. Merely because the office of the firm was found to be closed on one given day that by itself will not mean that the Respondents prohibited the Petitioners from participating the business. There could be many reasons as to why the office may remain closed. It is not the case of the Petitioners that by keeping this office closed on a regular basis, the Respondents are running the business from some other place. 4. My attention was drawn to a letter addressed to the N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station being letter dated 3rd September 2010. It was argued by the learned Counsel Mr. Khandeparkar that the purport of the said letter shows that the Respondents are in no mood to allow the Petitioners to participate in the 3 CONPL118.10.sxw business unless the Petitioners sign the partnership deed as my be required. He submitted that the letter if read in the proper context would go to show that the Respondents do not wish to abide by the order by the Court and that amounts to contempt. He had also drawn my attention to a letter addressed by the Advocate for the Respondents to the Advocate for the Petitioners being letter dated 3rd September 2010 where similar intention was manifested. By referring to these letters, it was argued that the Respondents do not wish to abide by the orders passed by the Court. I am unable to accept this submission. It is possible to hold that these two documents both dated 3rd September 2010 may go to show that the Respondents are not in a mood to allow the Petitioners to participate in the business. However, nothing is placed before the Court to show that after the relevant date i.e. 3rd September 2010, the Petitioners made a positive attempt to visit the factory premises and they were prevented from participating in the business. In my view, in order to allege that the contempt has been committed, it was necessary for the Petitioner to make the positive attempts to participate in the business and if such attempts are unsuccessful, a contemporaneous record is required to be created to say that the Respondents have violated the order of the Court. In my view, in the present case, there is nothing to show as of today that the Petitioners made an attempt to participate in the business and they were prevented. It is possible to allege that the Respondents violated the orders of the Court, if they resist the Petitioners on 2-3 occasions. For 4 CONPL118.10.sxw these reasons, I am not inclined to admit this Petition on the basis of the record before the Court. Hence, following order is passed :- (i) The Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)