1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2009 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.357 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.715 OF 2004 Mr. Naresh R. Dhoot ...Applicant. v. Mr.M.S.Dhillon & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Naresh R. Dhoot-in-person-applicant/petitioner present in Court. Ms Deepa Ahuja, adv., for the respondent no.1. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 16th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 For the reasons given in the application, delay is condoned and the dismissal of the contempt petition as against the respondent no.1 for non service is recalled as the respondent no.1 is now served and also represented. 2 Application stands disposed off. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.357 OF 2004 Mr.Naresh R. Dhoot ...Petitioner. v. M.S.Dhillon ...Respondent. Mr.Naresh R. Dhoot-in-person-applicant/petitioner present in Court. Ms Deepa Ahuja, adv., for the respondent no.1. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 16th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. By the order dated 12th July, 2004 in Civil Application No.4595 of 2003, this Court had appointed Court Receiver of the High Court as receiver of the suit flat and the appellant therein, who is respondent no.1 in the contempt petition, was allowed to occupy suit flat as an agent of the receiver subject to payment of royalty of Rs.5,000/- per month and also subject to payment of maintenance and other charges payable to the society and the charges of the receiver. He was also directed to pay arrears of the maintenance and other charges of the society within four weeks from that date. The order further directed that if the amount is not deposited within 3 stipulated period, receiver would be entitled to revoke the agency agreement. In paragraph (iv), it is further clarified that in the event appellant, i.e., the respondent no.1 in the present petition commits breach of any terms and conditions of the agency agreement including clauses (i) and (ii), receiver would forthwith revoke the agreement and shall take possession of the suit flat. According to the present petitioner, who was respondent in that appeal, respondent no.1 had committed breach of that order as he had not paid arrears of maintenance and other charges of the society and that he had entered into an agreement by falsely representing to the court receiver that all the charges were paid. In fact, if such a breach of that order was committed, consequences of the same were clearly spelt out in that order and the Court Receiver could revoke agency agreement and take back possession of the suit flat from the present respondent no.1. When those consequences are clearly spelt out question of invoking provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act do not arise. 2 For the aforesaid reasons, contempt petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 4