1 conp55-89.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Contempt Petition No.55 of 2009 in Notice of Motion No.362 of 2006 in Suit No. 320 of 2006 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation .. Plaintiffs v/s. Sharan P. Khanna & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.S.U.Kamdar with Ms.S.P.Bharati for the Petitioner Mr.S.P.Bharti for the Petitioner . None for the Respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 11th August , 2010 P.C. : 1. The Contempt Petition is filed by the original plaintiffs against the original defendants. Plaintiffs had taken possession in respect of the suit premises on the basis of certain terms and conditions with the defendants and an amount of Rs.1,28,52.000/- was paid to the defendants by way of security deposit with an understanding that as and when the plaintiffs vacate, the security deposit would be 2 conp55-89.sxw returned to them. According to plaintiffs, on a given date on receipt of cheque for Rs.1,28,52,000/- the plaintiffs vacated the premises in expectation that the cheque would be realized. When the said cheque was put in the bank, the cheque got dishonoured. That is how the plaintiffs filed this suit for recovery of the amount covered by the cheque with interest thereon. 2. The plaintiffs with a view fo see that no new rights are created in respect of the property which once upon a time was in their possession and with a view to protect their interest instituted Notice of Motion No.362 of 2006 praying for appointment of Court Receiver in regard to the premises covered by the present suit. By prayer clause (b) the order of injunction was sought restraining the defendants from creating third party rights and or parting with possession. The said motion was taken up for ad- interim hearing on 7.3.2006. The court was informed that the defendants have after getting possession from the plaintiffs created a leave and license in favour of the Unit Trust of India w.e.f. 29.9.2005 for a period of three years i.e. to say on the date 3 conp55-89.sxw when the motion was taken up for ad-interim hearing third party rights were already created in favour of Unit Trust of India. The learned Judge hearing the ad-interim application came to the conclusion that ad-interim receiver is not required to be granted and interest of justice would be met if defendants are restrained from creating third party rights after the agreement between the defendants and the Unit Trust of India comes to an end. A specific order was passed in that behalf and it was also ordered that defendants shall not extend the agreement with Unit Trust of India without leave of this Court. 3. According to the petitioners, though the agreement came to an end on 15.9.2009, the respondents-defendants have not taken any steps to institute proceeding for recovery of possession from Unit Trust of India and according to the counsel for the petitioners this amounts to contempt of order dated 7.3.2006. According to the Counsel for the petitioners, allowing Unit Trust of India to remain in possession of the premises amounts to allowing Unit Trust of India to be in the premises thereby violating the order by which 4 conp55-89.sxw the respondents were not permitted to extend the agreement with Unit Trust of India without leave of the Court. 4. I have considered the contentions raised by the petitioners. One thing is clear that the respondents have not renewed the leave and license agreement which came to an end on 15.9.2009. The question before the Court is whether silence on the part of the respondents in not filing proceedings against the Unit Trust of India after 2008 amounts to contempt. It is required to be noted that the respondents had taken out Notice of Motion No.3171 of 2008 praying for leave to extend the license agreement on certain terms as specified in prayer clause (b). This notice of motion was taken out by the respondents on 5.9.2008. This motion is pending as of today and no specific ad-interim orders have been passed on this motion. On the last occasion the respondents were directed to deposit in this court, the sum of Rs.1,28,52,000/- being the amount which was once upon a time held by the respondents as Security Deposit. That order dated 22.7.2010 has been complied with. This order came to be passed in of notice of motion No.579 5 conp55-89.sxw of 2009 taken out by the defendants. 5. If one considers the relevant dates, I am inclined to observe that the stand taken by the petitioners that respondents have violated order dated 5.3.2009 cannot be accepted. The leave and license agreement was to come to an end on 15.9.2008. Few days prior to that permission was sought by respondents/defendants to have leave and license agreement extended. This conduct on the part of the respondents shows their bonafides and because the said motion remained pending the respondents could not extend the leave and license agreement. The very fact that the respondents intended to extend the Leave and License agreement with Unit Trust of India, ofcourse with the leave of the Court, clearly indicated that the respondents wanted to obey the orders of the court and had no intention to violate the orders of the court. If at all the respondents intended to create new Leave and License Agreement in violation of the orders of the court, they would not have taken out the motion seeking leave. 6 conp55-89.sxw 6. As regards not taking steps to evict Unit Trust of India on expiry of the Leave and License Agreement is concerned, I am inclined to observe that respondents expected reliefs in their favour in Notice of Motion taken out by them. Hence their bonafides cannot be doubted. 7. In my view, the facts disclosed above clearly indicate that respondents wanted to obey the order and in any case the respondents have not committed any act which has resulted in violation of the orders passed by this court on 7.3.2006. In view of the above, I am inclined to observe that the contempt petition cannot be admitted and the same is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence following order is passed to dispose of the contempt petition at the stage of admission. ORDER i) Contempt Petition is rejected. ii) There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] 7 conp55-89.sxw