1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.66 of 2011 In Criminal Writ Petition No.509 of 2005 (D) (Mrs. Sujata w/o V. Kubade and another v. Mr. Subhash s/o Urkude Patil and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Ms A.A. Dharangaonkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri D.V. Dhondarkar, Advocate for Respondents. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 25 th August, 2011 1. This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience/breach of the order dated 9-4-2007 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.509 of 2005. The complaint is that the counsel appearing for Praptee Savings and Investments (India) Ltd. has made the statement before this Court that the Company has verified the claims of the investors and shall settle the claims by disbursing the maturity amount in their favour, if the deposits have matured as on date within a period of three weeks. It is the further statement recorded that so far as the other depositors are concerned, their maturity amount shall be disbursed to them as and when their deposits mature. 2. In spite of approaching the Company on repeated occasions, the undertaking given before this Court is not being complied with and the payment is not made in spite of the fact that the deposits have matured on 2-8-2005. 2 3. The receipts, which have matured for payment, are annexed to the petition as Annexures-III and IV, which pertain to Praptee Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. The statement in Criminal Writ Petition No.509 of 2005 was made for and on behalf of Praptee Savings and Investments (India) Ltd., which is a different Company. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioners are entitled to receive the said amount from Praptee Savings and Investments (India) Ltd. in terms of the undertaking furnished before this Court in the aforesaid criminal writ petition. The contention that Praptee Savings and Investments (India) Ltd. and Praptee Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. are owned by one and the same person, cannot be gone into in this contempt petition. 4. In view of above, the contempt petition is dismissed. Judge. pdl.