1 contempt pet.7-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 75 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1829 OF 2009 IN S.C. SUIT NO.987 OF 2009 Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd...Petitioner vs. Mr.Sunil Lalwani & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.G. Kurup for the Petitioner. Mr.Y.S. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr.Prasad Dani with Mr.D.V. Deokar, Mr.Pinakin Modi, Ms.S. Kapoor i/b. M/s.Parimal K. Shroff & Co. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 4, 2011 P.C. :- 1 We have heard Mr.Kurup, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, this petition is nothing short of an abuse of the process of law. 2 contempt pet.7-2011 2 The petitioner-society was before us in criminal Contempt Petition No.2/2011 and by a reasoned order of 17th March, 2011, we dismissed the contempt petition on the ground that there was no case made out even to take cognizance suo motu for criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It appears that as on 17th March, 2011, the petitioner’s application was pending before the learned Advocate General and on 5th May, 2011, the society sent a reminder to the learned Advocate General without disclosing that Contempt Petition No.2/2011 was already dismissed by us. The learned Advocate General by his letter dated 9th May, 2011 was pleased to grant consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and solely on that basis, a fresh contempt petition has been filed on the same set of facts. 3 For the reasons set out in our Order dated 3 contempt pet.7-2011 17th March, 2011, there is no case made out to take cognizance for criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and this petition must, therefore, fail and the same is hereby dismissed. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)