1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION (LG.) NO. 107 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1188 OF 2007 Shilpa Shares and Securities & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The National Cooperative Bank Limited & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Durgaprasad Sabnis i/by M/s. Thakordas & Madgavkar for the Petitioners Rubia Tareja and Mr. Sharma Tareja for Respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. P. Majumdar i/by Mr. M.P. Savla & Co. for Respondent No. 8. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: JUNE 17, 2009 P.C.:- It appears that the petitioners were in arrears on account of the loan they had taken from the respondent-Bank. Certain proceedings were pending before the Registrar, Co-operative Society. 2 2. Thereafter, the matter came to this Court in a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 105 of 2003. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, and held that remedy by way of a suit was available to the petitioners, and the interference by the Court in writ jurisdiction would not be appropriate. The Writ Petition was dismissed on 16th January, 2003. 3. The petitioners submit that this judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court. On 11th October, 2004, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and stay on confirmation of sale, and the Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal were listed as Civil Appeals No. 6760 and 6761 of 2004. The Supreme Court held that the auction-sale of the property of the petitioners was a nullity, and, therefore, there was no valid auction-sale. After holding that the auction-sale was a nullity, the Supreme Court directed a re-auction, which, according to the respondents, has now been done. If the petitioners had any grievance that the respondents had misled the High Court in dismissing the Writ Petition, they had an option before the Supreme Court when they filed an appeal against the order of the High Court. They remained silent for 3 all these 6 years. Since the Supreme Court has now directed re-auction of the property, and it has been re-auctioned, therefore, in order to circumvent this latest auction, the petitioners have chosen to come to this Court with a prayer of initiating contempt proceedings. This is only an abuse of the process of law. 4. We are told that even the learned Advocate General has refused consent for filing this contempt, as he has also found that there is, prima facie, no contempt. 5. For these reasons, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.