1 cp173.08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 173 OF 2008 Ashok Krishnaji Chandgude & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. Sudhir D. Pimpale & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mangal S. Bhandari i/by M.S. Pranjali Bhandari for respondent Nos. 1 to 7. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 30th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This contempt petition was filed alleging that the respondents had violated the order of this Court, whereby they, being the existing trustees, were directed not to take any major policy decisions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out para 4 of the order dated 4th October, 2006 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 205 of 2006, which reads thus: 2 cp173.08.sxw "We are informed that this Court has already ordered that the existing trustees shall not take major policy decisions. The said order shall continue to operate till the instant writ petition is finally disposed of." From this, it is clear that on that day the Court was only informed that Court had already passed the order directing the existing trustees not to take major policy decisions and relying on the statement the Division Bench had stated that the said order be continued. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners could not find out the original order. The learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to the order dated 22nd September, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 5572 of 2006. However, on perusal of that order it is clear that no such order was passed by the Court restraining the existing trustees from taking any major policy decisions. As such the observations made in para 4 above were based on misinformation. Therefore, in my view, the petitioners have failed to make out any case for for taking action in contempt of Court. 3. The petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)