1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2007 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 26 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3546 OF 2004 IN SUIT NO. 1409 OF 1976 Nirmaalkumar Purshottam Rungta and anr. .. Appellants Vs. Raj R. Geonka .. Respondent Mr. Vineet Naik a/w J.S. Chandnani for appellants. Mr. Prasad Das for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. March 02, 2010. P.C. 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 5/6/2007 passed in Contempt Petition No. 26 of 2007, thereby sentencing the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each along with costs of Rs.15,000/-. While admitting the appeal, the order of sentence was stayed and appellants were directed to 2 furnish bond for appearing after depositing the amount of fine and costs. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, both the parties continued negotiations for an amicable settlement and they have been successful in the same. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the parties on 3/12/2009 and the suits/cases settled between the parties are listed in Annexure-1 and Annexure -2 to the Memorandum of Understanding. A copy of the same has been placed before us and for identification, the same is marked as “X”. It appears Contempt Petition (C) No. 15 of 2008 was also filed in SLP (C) No. 40 of 1989 and on 22/1/2010 the Supreme Court passed an order dropping the contempt proceedings by noting that the disputes between the parties have been settled out of the court. Mr. Naik, therefore, submitted before us to record the unconditional apology of the appellants and allow the appeal on the basis of the fine imposed and the costs amount have been deposited. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the disputes between the parties have been settled out of the court and in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 3/12/2009. 3 4. While the impugned order was passed, the learned Single Judge held that the apology, so tendered, was not genuine and, therefore, could not be accepted. Consequently, the learned Judge proceeded to punish the appellants under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. As noted earlier, the parties have settled all their disputes and the contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court came to be dropped. It would be, therefore, safe to accept the unconditional apology, as being genuine and, therefore, under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the appellants could be discharged or the punishment awarded could be remitted. 6. We accept the apology tendered and remit the punishment awarded by the impugned order in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the punishment awarded is hereby remitted. Consequently, the order of sentence as well as fine is hereby quashed and set aside. The bonds stand discharged. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)