1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.342 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2168/2008. 1) Vinay G. Bathiya and Another - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) Mr.Sudhakar Kulkarni and others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.A.S.Deshmukh,Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.Sunil A.Kulkarni, Advocate for Resp.No.1. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 5th February, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel extensively. 2) In a chequered history of events, between the litigants, where the Bank, as a creditor, has prima facie stooped low in dealing with applicant – Vinay, the appellant canvass, disobedience to the Court’s direction.. 2 3) Now, without adverting to the chequered history between the Bank and the applicant – Vinay, a short point left before this Court is, whether there is breach of orders passed by this Court. 4) In Writ Petition No.2168/2008, on 18th March, 2008, this Court (Coram: B.R.Gavai,J.) passed following order : “ Notice returnable two weeks indicating therein that the matter will be heard and finally decided at admission stage. By way of ad interim order, it is directed that no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioners only. Mr.S.A.Kulkarni, learned Advocate, waives service for Respondent no.1” 5) According to learned Counsel in spite of such order being in force, the Bank blatantly issued a letter dated 25th October, 2008, 3 restricting and arresting disbursement to the applicant – Vinay. Hence contempt or disobedience. 6) The letter of the bank reads as under : “ We have received instructions from our Industrial Area Branch, Aurangabad, in terms of which your payment of RBI Bond is being withheld for recovery of our draft payment of Rs.15,45,958/- due from you, the copy of which is pending in D.R.T. matter. Please note and acknowledge receipt.” 7) The letter referred above, if read in any angle, it will not indicate any angularity in it to ditch the orders of inhibiting `coercive steps’. The term `coercive’ has the following Dictionaries meanings. “binding, compelling, compulsory, forcible, obligatory etc.” 4 8) In view of the above, it hardly display, the Bank flouted the directions – not to take coercive steps. There is nothing to this effect. However, Bank is expected not to act as a ordinary litigant, keep morals to shelves. Contempt Petition lacks merit, it needs rejection and rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/cp342.08