:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 33 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 33 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 33 OF 2009 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2410 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 2410 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 2410 OF 2008 Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. ... Petitioners. V/s. Raghu Menon & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 04th 04th 04th APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard Mr. Sanglikar, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner. 2. This Contempt Petition alleges that although the Writ Petition filed by the Respondents has been dismissed by this Court in so far as the challenge raised to the order dated 4th October 2007 of the Estate Officer, yet, the Respondents are persisting with their stand that the matter of Eviction from Public premises between the Respondents and the Petitioner before me in this Contempt Petition can be referred to the High Power Committee contemplated by the Supreme Court orders. :2: 3. Having perused the order of the Division Bench and the correspondence between the Petitioner and the Respondents, in my view, this is not a case for Civil Contempt. The Contempt Petition is clearly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. If the Respondents persist with their stand despite rejection of their Writ Petition, it is not as if the Life Insurance Company is helpless. It has initiated the eviction proceedings and it can continue with them and pass such orders therein as are permissible in law. All these issues can be gone into in the eviction proceedings. There is no contempt. 4. Reliance placed upon the Supreme Court decision reported in (2008) 1 SCC page 560 (Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodhyog Welfare Sanstha V/s. State of U.P.) is misplaced because there, repeatedly, the party approached the High Court by filing Writs and suppressing relevant and material facts. It is that conduct which was termed as contumacious and therefore, the observations relied upon by Mr. Sanglikar have been made. They must be seen in the back drop of the fact situation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. That is not the case before me and the decision is, therefore, distinguishable. The Contempt Petition is dismissed. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)