1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 17 OF 1999 -ALONG WITH- CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 800 OF 2000 ICICI Limited. ..... ..... Petitioner. Versus Patheja Brothers Forgings & Stampings Ltd. & Ors. ..... ....... Respondents. Mr. F. Sayyed i/by M/s. Manilal Kher & Ambalal & Co., for the petitioner. Mr. S. Jha for Respondent Nos.3,4 and 6. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP, for the Respondent State. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are also present in Court. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and A. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED : 7TH JULY, 2008. P.C.: This contempt petition is pending in this Court from the year 1999. The contempt has been filed on the grounds mentioned in para 4 (S) of the petition. The petitioner contended, “the petitioners state that the contempt committed by the respondents are set out as under: (a) Non-handing over of possession to the Court Receiver on 5th and 6th April, 1999. (b) Representing to the Hon'ble Court on 6th April, 1999 that the 2 Reference filed by the Respondents had been registered. (c) By addressing a false letter to the Court Receiver stating that the reference before the BIFR had been registered as Reference No. 77/99. (d) By organising a mob, not remaining present and not handing over possession of the suit securities on 9th April, 1999.” 2. For proceeding in a contempt against a person for violation of the orders of the Court, the Court must be sure that the disobedience of the order of the Court was willful. This is a petition in which we are not even sure as to whether any violation of the orders of the Court has been done and if so by whom. Even if it is agreed as suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the report submitted by the Court Receiver, who went for executing the order of the Court, discloses violation of the order, even then we cannot come to a definite conclusion as to who was responsible for violation of the order of the Court. Even in the petition, it is stated that respondent No.1 is a company. About respondent Nos.2 to 5 no particulars have been given in the title of the petition. However, in paragraph 2 of the petition, it is stated, “respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the persons, who to the knowledge of the petitioners are in charge of and responsible to the 1st respondent company for the conduct of the business of the company.” In paragraph 3 of the petition, it is stated, “The petitioners have approached this 3 Hon'ble Court inter alia praying that appropriate action be taken against the respondents and/or other Directors / Managers / Secretaries / Officers / persons of the 1st respondent company”. The contempt jurisdiction is a very serious jurisdiction and consequences of exercise of this jurisdiction would be even jailing a person. Therefore, the court must be definite as to whether there is any willful disobedience of the order of the Court and the Court should also be definite about the person who has committed willful disobedience of the order of the Court. 3. In this case, there is nothing on record to show that respondent Nos.2 to 5 had committed any willful disobedience of the order of the Court or any act or omission. The petition is misconceived and is pending for the last ten years. Therefore, we do not propose to proceed with this contempt petition and it is dismissed as such. 4. By not proceeding in this contempt petition, we are not deciding any controversy between the parties. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.)