1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.396 OF 2010 Sunil s/o Ganeshlal Agrawal & ors. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS Shri G.N. Mahale & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.M. Gholap, Advocate for the petitioner Shri A.S. Bayas, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15th November, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. Mr. Bayas appears for alleged contemner, has filed power. Mr. Gholap for the petitioner has insisted for affidavit-in-reply from the respondents. 2. In the fact situation, I do not contemplate that affidavit is imperative to be taken. The order, subject of alleged contempt is as under : “1. S.A. is hereby allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the applicants to be paid by the respondent Bank forthwith. 2. Actions taken by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act are hereby quashed and set aside.” 3. In the light of the provisions enumerated in Chapter 2 IV, which conceive procedure of Tribunals, the proceedings initiated in S.A. No.55/2008 will be part of procedure of Tribunal and consequently, effect of Section 19 in Chapter IV of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 would be applicable. In terms of Section 19 (17) and (25), in case of disobedience of an order made by Tribunal, under subsections 12, 13 and 18 or breach of any of the terms on which the order was made, the Tribunal is in authority to attach the property of such person guilty of disobedience. The Tribunal, in terms of subsection 25, is also competent to make such order or such direction as would be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order to prevent abuse of its process. In the light of the situation, the order of cost of Rs.10,000/-, even if not complied, will not give germination to an action of contempt. 4. The second fascet of the matter is, being aggrieved by the above referred order, the respondents/ contemners have also preferred an appeal, which is pending for removing objections, there being delay. In the set of above facts, there is obviously no contempt that has been committed by the respondents and hence, without waiting for any affidavit-in-reply, contempt petition disposed of. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cp39610