1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 362 OF 2010 AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 363 OF 2010 Balkrishna S/o Madhavrao Dhopeshwarkar Versus Abhay Mandlik, C.E.O. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 362 OF 2010 AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 363 OF 2010 Balkrishna S/o Madhavrao Dhopeshwarkar Versus Abhay Mandlik, C.E.O. and others. *** Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1. Mr. V. B. Ghatage, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 3. Mr. L. H. Kaldate, Advocate for Respondent No.6. *** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED: 9th DECEMBER, 2010. 1. Heard finally. Writ Petition No.6669 of 2008 and 6670 of 2008 were moved by the Petitioners against the order of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad and other authorities, including the Recovery Officer. On 17th November, 2008 stay was granted. According to the Petitioners, during pendency of above said matter, the 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 362 OF 2010 AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 363 OF 2010 Balkrishna S/o Madhavrao Dhopeshwarkar Versus Abhay Mandlik, C.E.O. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Respondents ventured to publish notice of auction of sale twice thereby calling an action for contempt for which Contempt Petition No. 331 of 2009 and 332 of 2009 are moved and pending. 3. The events for the present petition creeps in from the order of this Court dated 25th February, 2010 in the above referred writ petitions which flows as under: "1. Heard.' 2. Rule. 3. Ad-interim relief to the extent that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner or to the extent of properties exclusively owned by him. It is made clear, however, that if there is dispute regarding the transfer of certain property by him in favour of the respondent No.2, such dispute may be resolved and after giving 15 days' 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 362 OF 2010 AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 363 OF 2010 Balkrishna S/o Madhavrao Dhopeshwarkar Versus Abhay Mandlik, C.E.O. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. notice to him, further action may be taken." 4. The grievance is, inspite of specific indications to resolve the dispute and after giving 15 days notice to him, the respondents have unauthorisedly dealt with other property which was not subject of tripartite agreement between the petitioner, the bank and the subsequent borrower (Maharudra Paper Mills) on 29th February, 2004. The basic thrust of Mr. Deshmukh is, reference to the properties moveable in the agreement dated 30th August, 2003 and schedule thereof. Prior thereto there was an agreement of sale between petitioners and one Mr. Chorge and Kadge (the subsequent purchasers) in respect of disputed properties including immovable property where in annexure details of the machinery is given. 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 362 OF 2010 AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 363 OF 2010 Balkrishna S/o Madhavrao Dhopeshwarkar Versus Abhay Mandlik, C.E.O. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 5. Mr. Deshmukh submits there was other machinery lying at the site belonging to the petitioner which was not subject of any agreement between him or the bank or between him or the subsequent purchasers. Since it was not an emcumbered property, the bank had no right to deal with the same by causing a publication in newspaper and disposing the same in realisation of its recovery. 6. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the bank, invited my attention to the representation dated 19th March, 2010 addressed by the petitioner to the Respondent No.2 the Special Recovery Officer, having answered the same by communication dated 6th April, 2010. According to him, whatever was the grievance that the petitioner was agitating has been dealt with by the officer and has replied the 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 362 OF 2010 AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 363 OF 2010 Balkrishna S/o Madhavrao Dhopeshwarkar Versus Abhay Mandlik, C.E.O. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. same, as above, and consequently there cannot be any contempt of any nature. The learned counsel also submits, if the petitioner herein has a grievance against said communication dated 6th April, 2010 he has other forum to avail and present proceedings would not be the answer. I quite see that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 6th April, 2010, not acceding to the averments or allegations of the petitioner, it would not be lending the act of respondent No.2 or the bank to be in contempt of the orders passed in the writ petition. The petitioner has independent remedy to challenge. 7. During course of submissions, Mr. Deshmukh, on a querry, could not satisfy to existence of independent property/ machinery 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 362 OF 2010 AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 363 OF 2010 Balkrishna S/o Madhavrao Dhopeshwarkar Versus Abhay Mandlik, C.E.O. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. belonging to the petitioner, without charge of the bank or which is not subject of transaction with third party. 8. Mr. Deshmukh referred to the agreement of 2003 and also to the advertisement of the bank published on 9th April, 2010. These details will not be a proof of machinery owned by the petitioner. The publication of auction notice dated 9th April 2010 is against the subsequent purchaser Maharudra Paper Mills which comrpised his machineries. The notice also specifies that the machinery belongs to Maharudra Paper Mills. It consequently cannot be matched to the property referred in the agreement. The machineries are subsequent addition by Maharudra Paper Mills, hence the petitioner primarily cannot seek claim to the said 7 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 362 OF 2010 AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 363 OF 2010 Balkrishna S/o Madhavrao Dhopeshwarkar Versus Abhay Mandlik, C.E.O. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. property and that too solely based on Bank's notice of auction. In the set of above facts, I do not see any disobedience or contempt or willful contempt on the part of the bank in attending the grievance of the petitioner. Both the contempt petitions dismissed. Notice discharged. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:09/12/2010. ans/362