1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 13 OF 2005 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2855 OF 2003 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 45 OF 2003 AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. 427 OF 20007 & SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.690 OF 2005 . ....... Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Plaintiff. V/s. Balchandra Shinde & Anr. ...Defendants. --- Ms. Asha Nair, i/b M/s Mahesh Menon & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. K.J. Somane, for Respondent no.1. --- CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 6TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The Petitioner has filed the contempt petition alleging that Respondent no.1 has committed contempt of the minutes of order dated 04.03.2004. 2. Under clause 4 of the minutes of order dated 04.03.2004, Respondent no.1 was required to hand over the 2 possession of the bus to the Petitioner on 05.03.2004 at 11.00 a.m. According to the Petitioner, Respondent no.1 failed and neglected to hand over the possession of the said vehicle. However, according to Respondent no. l he had already handed over the possession of the vehicle to the Petitioner on 22.02.2004. This would appear to be contrary to the with minutes of order which was entered into on 04.03.2004. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to be correct. 3. By a letter dated 24.02.2004, Respondent no.1 informed the Petitioner that as per his instruction he was handing over possession of the vehicle and requested the Petitioner to inform him the location where the vehicle could be handed over. 4. Initially receipt of the letter and bus was denied by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner the vehicle has been handed over to one Mr. Sainath, the regional manager of the Petitioner and receipt of their letter was acknowledged by one Mr, Yatin Dabholkar. Respondent no.1 was declared insolvent on 03.06.2003 and he was unable to run the bus and handed over 3 possession thereof on 24.02.2004. 5. Respondent no.1, however, in his affidavit-in-reply stated that at the time of handing over possession one Satish Kolhapure, Executive, said Sainath,regional manager and Yatin Dabholkar, legal head of the Petitioner were present. He has further stated that the bus was lying at Babu garage at Jogeshwari and it is there that the possession of the said vehicle was handed over to the Petitioner. He also stated that documents including registration book, taxation book and permits were handed over to the Petitioner. 6. To test the bona-fides of the first respondent, I asked the learned counsel for the first respondent whether he is willing to make a statement that he does not have any interest whatsoever in the vehicle and that he would, if necessary, sign all the documents in respect thereof, if required, to ensure the same vested in the petitioner. He stated that he is ready to undertakes to do so. He further states that he has no objection if the Petitioner makes applications to the concerned authorities to transfer or vest any rights in respect of the bus in favour of the Petitioner absolutely. 4 The statements are accepted. 7. Subject to the above, no further action is called for, in the contempt petition which is accordingly disposed of. The non- bailable warrant shall stand cancelled. 8. The learned counsel for the first respondent after taking instructions states that the said vehicle appears to be at the same location viz. Babu garage, Jogeshwari.