: 1 : conp-68-09=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 68 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 27 OF 2007 Suresh Mani .. Petitioner v/s. Shah Vora Tiles and Marble Industries P.Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Cyrus Ardershir i/by Kanga & Co. for the petitioner Mr. M.S. Doctor & Subhash Jadhav i/by ALMT Legal for respondent nos. 1 to 5. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 26th NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that by order dated 14th February, 2007 in the Arbitration Petition, respondents were prohibited from creating third party rights and / or parting with possession as also mortgaging the property namely unit no. 707, situated at 7th floor, Raheja Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai. The said order was confirmed by order dated 27th June, 2007. 2. The petitioner alleges that unit no.707 was mortgaged to Bank of India on the basis of equatable mortgage prior to passing of order dated 14th February, 2007. According to the petitioners after order dated 14th : 2 : conp-68-09=.sxw February, 2007 respondents sought to extend the mortgage facility and that is how according to the petitioners they committed contempt. In so far as this argument is concerned, it is difficult to accept the same. Prior to the passing of the order, the respondents had mortgaged the property i.e. unit no.707 to a Bank. If the term of that mortgage has to come to an end, continuation of that facility cannot be termed as violation of the order dated 14th February, 2007. To that extent, no case for contempt is made out. 3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondents applied to the bank for securing additional facilities and according to the petitioner the demand loan of Rs.150 lakhs was made and that the said loan was sanctioned. According to the petitioner, said loan was sanctioned by creating additional equitable mortgage on unit no. 707. In support of this stand, learned Counsel for the petitioner produced before the Court sanction order passed by the Bank of India as well as certain documents to show that the respondents had facility of additional loan by putting the said unit no.707 by creating second round of equatable mortgage. 4. I have perused the sanction order. It is true that the additional loan has been given to the extent of Rs.150 lakhs. However, there is : 3 : conp-68-09=.sxw nothing to show on the basis of document duly executed by the respondents that they accepted the said grant of loan and permitted the bank to retain the documents which were already with them for the additional amount of loan amount. In my view, mere sanction letter by itself would not be sufficient. If the documents are already lying with the bank and additional loan is sought to be procured on the basis of documents which are already lying with the bank, the bank ought to have obtained acknowledgment or a writing from the debtors that whatever documents which they are held should also be covered to additional loan facility. The record is silent as regards this kind of document. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the memorandum of entry regarding extension of the equatable mortgage by the company in favour of the Bank of India annexed to the additional affidavit. He also tried to rely upon a statement which is appearing in the said statement purported to have made by Deepak Shroff attorney for K.D. Shroff and Ms. A. D. Shroff which according to him is sufficient acknowledgment and an indication to the bank that Deepak Shroff, Director of the company has accepted the terms of the loan granted. In my view, documents produced before the Court are insufficient to come to the conclusion that in fact the bank has accepted and obtained a letter from the respondents and in particular the owner of unit no.707 i.e. the company that they are agreeable to allow the bank to retain the : 4 : conp-68-09=.sxw documents for the additional loan facility. I am inclined to observe that the petitioners have not been able to produce before the Court the relevant documents to show that respondents have violated the orders by creating additional mortgage. The contempt petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the contempt petition. ORDER (i) Contempt Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)