1502cp232.10.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 232 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 455 OF 1999 Syed Biram Syed Mannu three others :: PETITIONERS -: Versus :- Mohd. Mujaffar Mohd. Saheb and another :: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. P. Palshikar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Rohit Deo, Advocate for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 15TH FEBRUARY, 2011. ORAL ORDER : 1. This contempt petition complaints about willful disobedience/breach of order dated 28/12/1999 passed on Civil Application No.5762 of 1999 in First Appeal No. 455 of 1999. By the said order, this Court had recorded the statement of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that till the matter is heard by regular Bench, the respondents will not enroll new members and take any major financial decision. The complaint in the contempt petition is that on 25/10/2007 the respondents have enrolled new members and they have taken major policy decision, 1502cp232.10.odt 2/3 and therefore, this amount to contempt of the Court. 2. Notice before admission was issued by this Court on 02/12/2010. In response to the same, submissions have been filed by the respondents. In the submissions, it has been pointed out that on 10/10/2000 the matter was heard by the regular Bench and following order was passed: “Heard Shri D. L. Dharmadhikari, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Rule. Heard the parties at length on the aspect of interim relief. Interim relief refused. Rule is expedited.” It is further submitted that whatever order was passed by this Court on 28/12/1999 did not survive. 3. Shri Deo, learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that there is suppression of material aspects that the regular Bench of this Court had heard the matter on 10/10/2000 and the interim relief was refused although the matter was admitted. According to him, had this fact been brought to the notice of this Court at the time of issuance of notice, either during the course of argument or pleadings in the petition, this Court would not have issued notice before admission. 4. The contention of Shri Palshikar, appearing for the petitioner is that on 15/9/2000 an undertaking given on 29/12/1993, was continued and by order dated 10/10/2000 only interim relief was refused and thus, the undertaking furnished, which was recorded in the order dated 28/12/1999, was continued and by order dated 10/10/2000 only interim relief was refused and thus, the undertaking furnished 1502cp232.10.odt 3/3 which was recorded in the order dated 28/12/1999, continued. Hence, it was not necessary for the petitioner to refer the same in the body of petition or to point out to this Court about admission and refusal of interim order. 5. Perusal of the order dated 28/12/1999 shows that the undertaking given by the respondents, that they shall not enroll new members and shall not take any major financial decisions, was to operate only till the hearing of the matter by the regular Bench. The regular Bench heard the matter on 10/10/2000 and refused to grant any interim relief, as a result, the undertaking did not survive. Undisputedly, the enrollment of members and policy decisions alleged to have been taken on 25/10/2007. There was no such decision taken before 10/10/2000. In view of this, there is no question of any contempt. 6. So far as suppression of material fact is concerned, the petitioner ought to have pleaded in the body of the petition that the matter was heard by the regular Bench on 10/10/2000 and the interim relief was refused. As a result of this, whether the undertaking given and recorded in the order 28/12/1999 survives or not, is altogether different question and relates to the effect of the order passed on 10/10/2000. This material fact has, however, been suppressed. The petition is, therefore, nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. The same is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred only). JUDGE WWL