*1* conp.1.11.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1 OF 2011 ETCO Spinners Pvt.Ltd.. ..Petitioner -Versus- The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others. ..Respondents ........... Mr.Swapnil Bangur a/w Ms.Ujjwala Deshmukh i/b M/s Dewan Dwarkadas & Partners, for the Petitioner. Mr.Harshad Bhadbhade, for the Respondent No.1. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP, for the State. .......... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & A.M.THIPSAY, JJ. Date : 20th April, 2011. P.C. 1 We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner Company that on 07.08.2008, the Respondent No.2 Dr.S.V.Ghaisas, General Manager of the Respondent No.1 Multi- State Co-operative Bank had filed the affidavit before the Arbitrator in support of an application seeking attachment of the properties and in the properties list at Sr.No.9 the Petitioner’s property was mentioned as the property hypothecated in favour of the Respondent No.1 Bank. As per the Petitioner, the property at Sr.No.9 was never hypothecated in favour of the Respondent No.1 Bank and on the basis of such false statement, an exparte order was obtained on 07.08.2008 from the Arbitrator. On 23.09.2008, an Arbitration Petition was moved by the present Petitioner Company so as to challenge the order dated 07.08.2008 passed by the Arbitrator. On 20.12.2008, the Respondent No.1 submitted an application for modification of the order so as to exclude the Petitioner’s property from the list of properties under attachment and perhaps *2* conp.1.11.sxw realising that the Petitioner’s property was not hypothecated to the Bank. Based on these averments, it is contended by the Petitioner that the Respondent No.2 made a false statement before the Arbitrator on 07.08.2008 and obtained an exparte order by misleading the Arbitrator and thus, interfered with the course of justice or in the administration of justice. The Respondent No.2 is, thus, guilty of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, claims the Petitioner. 2 Though this petition was filed on or about 24.04.2009, it came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 02.07.2010. Civil Application No.70/2010 was allowed on 30.09.2010 and the petition was restored. On 18.11.2010, when the petition came up before the Single Bench, the averments made in the petition were perused and it was noted that the allegations seemed to be of commission of criminal contempt, hence, the petition was directed to be placed before the Division Bench and that is how the petition came up before us. 3 Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deals with the procedure for initiating the criminal contempt proceedings. As per the said section, cognizance of criminal contempt in the proceedings other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, can be taken by the High Court on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Whereas, in case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate General. In the instant case, none of these requirements are satisfied and the Petitioner has not approached the Advocate General so as to seek his consent in writing and therefore, the petition cannot be entertained. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the order passed by the *3* conp.1.11.sxw learned Single Judge on 18.11.2010 and submitted that on the face of the said order this petition ought to be treated as a petition initiated under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The order dated 18.11.2010 reads as under:- “Perused the averments made in the petition and in particular paragraph No.24 thereof. Allegation seems to be of commission of a criminal contempt. Hence, petition will have to be placed before the appropriate Division Bench.” 4 It is clear from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the petition even when it was filed before this Court contained the allegations of criminal contempt on the part of the Respondents and therefore, the petition could not lie before the Single Bench. As per Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, every case of criminal contempt under Section 15 is required to be heard and decided by a bench of not less than two judges and it is for these reasons that the learned Single Judge directed to place the petition before the Division Bench. The said order cannot be relied upon even to suggest that this Court has taken suo-motu cognizance or it is a contempt petition covered by Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5 Hence, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. We clarify that this order will not prevent the Petitioner to take any other steps as per law. (A.M.THIPSAY, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)