1 CP-54-55-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2009 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 55 OF 2009 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2009 Ramchandra S. Gurav ... Petitioner vs. M/s. Kishanchand & Company & Ors. Respondents (Contemnors) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 55 OF 2009 Kisan V. Jadhav ... Petitioner vs. M/s.Kishanchand & Co. & Ors. Respondents (Contemnors) Mr. J.S.Kini i/b. Suresh Dubey,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.S.P.Kanuga,Advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. A.I.I.Patel, AGP, for respondent No.4. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 7th October, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners were the employees of M/s. Kishanchand & Company i.e. respondent No.1. It was said to be a partnership firm. The Industrial Court had passed orders and issued Recovery Certificate against respondent No.1. The 2 CP-54-55-09.sxw Recovery Certificate could not be executed inspite of the attempts made through the Collector's office. Therefore, the Contempt Petitions are filed. 3. Admittedly, it is difficult to find any partner of respondent No.1 - Kishanchan & Company which was a partnership firm. Now that firm is not in existence. It was the contention of the petitioners that M/s. Kishco Silver Pvt.Ltd. had taken over M/s. Kishanchand & Co. and therefore, M/s. Kishco Silver Pvt.Ltd. is liable to satisfy the Recover Certificates, but it appears that the Industrial Court did not accept this contention. Respondent No.2 - Mrs. Minunath is said to be a Director of M/s. Kishco Silver Pvt.Ltd. It is also contended that she was partner of M/s. Kishanchand & Co. However, no material is produced to show that she was a partner. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners requested the Court to compare her signatures on the statements submitted by M/s. Kishanchand & Co. in respect of Employees Provident Fund Scheme. The respondent No.2 appears to have signed them as constituted attorney for Kishanchand & Co. There is nothing to show that she was a partner of the same. In view of these circumstances, it appears that there are several questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court while dealing with Contempt Petition. In the interest of justice and for 3 CP-54-55-09.sxw proper execution of the Recovery Certificates, the petitioners may be relegated to the executing machinery through the Industrial Court. 4. Therefore, I do not see any reason to proceed with these petitions. Both the Contempt Petitions stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)