1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN INSOLVENCY CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.16 OF 2009 IN INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.32 OF 2002 Sushila G. Parikh ....Petitioner V/s. Borivali Prashant Sadan CHS Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.A.K. Saxena for the Petitioner. Ms.Marlyin Mantiro for the society. Mr.A.P. Kothari, Deputy Official Assignee present. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 6TH JULY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. No case for contempt of court is made out. According to the Petitioner, the society is guilty of having violated an order of this Court dated 21.7.2009 by including in its bills the amount of legal costs. 2. The order dated 21.7.2009 prima-facie at least does not prohibit the society from demanding the payment towards legal costs. Whether the amount is payable or not by the Petitioner is another matter which must be adjudicated upon in appropriate proceedings. The reliance upon the operative part of the order dated 21.7.2009 is not well founded. The operative part of the order dated 21.7.2009 states that the amount of 2 Rs.55,000/- is towards the full and final settlement of the Respondent i.e. the societies claim “towards the transfer fees, arrears pertaining to the repair charges/interest/penalty. In other words, the full and final settlement is only in respect of these items namely transfer fees, arrears pertaining to the repair charges/interest/penalty. The full and final settlement is not in respect of all the claim of the society. Clause 3(iii) of the order which provides that after the transfer of the flat in the Applicant’s name, the only liability of the Applicant shall be to pay the monthly bills issued by the society to which the Applicant cannot be read in isolation, it must be read along with clause (i). So read, it is clear that those items of which there is a full and final settlement, cannot be claimed again. 3. In any event, this dispute does not warrant any proceedings for contempt of court. To say the least, the Applicant’s construction of the order is not only the possible construction. It is made clear that the Applicant will be entitled to raise any defences in appropriate proceedings in the event of the order seeking to enforce the dues towards the costs is challenged. 4. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.