1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.110 OF 2009 Mrs. Shashi Gupta. ..Petitioner. Vs. Shri. Kodanda Raman, Chief Manager, Canara Bank and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara i/by J.J. Ostwal for the Petitioner. Mr.R.R.Gade for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 31st August, 2009 PC : 1. This is a contempt proceeding alleging violation of the impugned order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade. Mumbai below application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 in C.C.No.306/M/2007. The allegation is that while allowing the application, the Magistrate directed 2 that possession of the secured assets viz. Flat No.203 and 204, 2nd floor, Chawla House, Woodhouse Road, Colaba, Mumbai should be taken after issuing notice to the respondents and after giving reasonable time of not more than 15 days to hand over the possession. Perusal of the reply indicates that after this order was passed, on an application made by the bank, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued individual notices to the respondents on 3.7.2008 to be served through the police station to the various respondents. These notices are said to have been received by one Harish Lutharia who according to the petitioner is the Accountant who found in the office of the respondent No.1 firm in C.C.No.360/M/2007. The police report indicates that house occupied by the present applicant was locked and the said Harish Lutharia, who even according to the petitioner is the Accountant of the M/s.Seema Silks and Sarees which is a partnership firm of which the petitioner s husband is the partner. The record 3 thus indicates that an attempt has been made by the present respondents to follow the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Citing various judgments, it was sought to be contended that such a service was no service at all in the eyes of law. Even assuming that, this is correct, the present respondents have not intentionally disobeyed the order of the Magistrate. They have filed an application for issuance of notice and notice was in fact issued and served by the police in the manner in which they thought was fit and proper. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner of service of the notice, her remedies lies elsewhere. I am not satisfied that there was any intentional disobedience of the order passed by the Magistrate. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to follow such other remedies as permissible by law. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)