1 conp9.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.9 OF 2010 Shri A.R.Vazalwar ....Petitioner Vs. Ms.Arti Joshi(Advocate) & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Vishwajeet Mohite, advocate appointed as amicus curiae. Smt. B.P.Jakhade with Mr. J.S. Kapre, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.M.Gorwadkar, advocate for Respondent No.2. Dr. F.R.Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 2, 2010. P.C. 1. This suo motu contempt action is founded on the reference made by the Arbitrator appointed under Section 84 of Multi State Co-op. Societies Act, 2002 for the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd.. Reference is made in the context of the averments made in the application filed on behalf of the Respondent No.2 before the Arbitrator Exh. 72. The offending words used in the application are as follows: “........... these respondent can prove that said deposer has deposed 2 conp9.10 false facts for the reasons best known to said deposer and said facts are in collusion with the Chairperson of this Hon’ble Tribunal.” On the basis of the said reference, show cause notice was issued not only to the Respondent No.2 but also to Respondent No.1, who incidentally happens to be the advocate, under whose signature the said application was presented before the Tribunal. 2. In response to the said show cause notice, both the Respondents have filed separate affidavits. At the outset, both the Respondents have tendered unconditional apology and have also stated that they would unconditionally withdraw the offending words found in Exh. 72, as referred to earlier. In addition, the Respondent No.1 has offered explanation that it was her bonafide mistake and she went by the insistence of Respondent No.2 to continue the said offending words on record. As a matter of fact, going by the stand of the Respondent No.1, it would follow that the Respondent No.2 consciously incorporated the said offending words in Exh. 72. In that view of the matter, the issue will have to be addressed independently against the Respondent No.2. 3. Nevertheless, since Respondent No.2 also having realised his mistake and has accepted that the expressions used in Exh.72 are essentially on account of 3 conp9.10 mis-information and mis-communication and in any case, he unconditionally withdraws the same; coupled with the fact that he has tendered unconditional apology. Taking over all view of the matter, we dispose of this Contempt Petition on accepting unconditional apology tendered by both the Respondents. We also accept the undertaking given by the Respondents that they would take steps to delete the offending words from application Exh. 72 and any other pleading on record. That be done forthwith. Notices issued to the Respondents are discharged, subject to above. 4. The Court expresses word of gratitude for the able assistance given by the learned amicus curiae. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)