1 CONP1.09.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 874 OF 1995 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 820 OF 2009 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1421 OF 2010 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 874 OF 1995 Philomena Pinto & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. A.K. Sawdekar & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. H.S. Thakkar for the Petitioners. Ms. Madhuri Gaikwad i/b. K.V. Tembe for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Ashish Kamat i/b. M/s. RMG Law Associates for Respondent No.4. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 29th OCTOBER 2010. P.C. :- Learned Counsel tried to point out that the Contemnors have not complied with clause 5 and clause 15 of the Consent terms and have committed contempt. So far as clause 5 is concerned, Defendants were required to apply for completion certificate and after getting the completion certificate, they were supposed to apply for registration of the society. 2 CONP1.09.sxw Naturally, an application for completion certificate can be made only after the project is complete and once the application is made, the burden is on the Corporation to decide the said application. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not point out to the Court a specific averment where it is said that the entire project is complete and therefore, the Defendants were bound and liable to make an application for completion certificate. If this is a position, it is difficult to accept that the Defendants have committed contempt so far as clause 5 is concerned. So far as clause 15 is concerned, there is an undertaking given by the Defendants that till the handing over of possession of the respective flats and up to the obtaining of completion certificate, they will pay necessary Municipal taxes. Nothing is specifically pointed out that there are arrears of taxes so far as Municipal taxes are concerned. If this is so, as of today, there is no case made out for entertaining the Contempt Petition and it is required to be dismissed. 3. Hence, the Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Notice of Motion No.820 of 2010 and Notice of Motion No. 1421 of 2010 are dismissed as the main Contempt Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)