1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.81 OF 2010 Kishor Pandurang Kushte ...Petitioner. v. P.S.Sakpal & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Vinayak H. Shinde i/by L.A.Malgaonkar, advs. For the Petitioner. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 19, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 Petitioner had filed dispute before the Co-operative Court seeking declaration that he is member of the society. The Co-operative Court passed an order in favour of the petitioner. That order was challenged by the Society before the Co-operative Appellate Court . Appeal was allowed and it was held that the petitioner is not a member of the society . Against that, petitioner had filed writ petition no.6928/08 which came to be disposed off on 29th June, 2009 with the following order “2 The findings of the cooperative appellate Court with respect to the petitioner’s membership are stayed. However, this will not preclude the Society from taking any action for cancellation or otherwise of the 2 petitioner’s membership as may be permissible in law. If such an application is filed, the same may be decided on its own merits.” 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the annual report issued on 25th July, 2009, i.e., after the above order of the High Court , it was stated that petitioner was not a member of the society. He further points out that in the meeting held on 19.9.2009 after getting orders of the different Courts including the above referred order of the High Court, society has taken a decision to take action as per law to seize membership certificate of the petitioner and to take back possession. In my considered opinion, none of these can be contempt of the Court particularly when this Court had permitted the society to take action for cancellation of the petitioner's membership as may be permissible in law. Resolution was passed by the society only to take action as per law. The learned counsel further points out that in a bill issued on 1.1.10 petitioner was shown as unauthorised occupant. Infact, it is the stand of the society that he is unauthorised occupant and action has to be taken as per law for his removal. Merely because he is shown as unauthorised occupant in the bill dated 1.1.10, it can not be stated that they have committed contempt of the Court. As long as without 3 following the procedure of law, Society does not make any attempt to remove the petitioner from the membership or from the flat, it can not be said that the contempt has been committed. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, I find no substance in the present petition. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)