1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 245/2008 (Dattatraya Gopalrao Borkute VERSUS Sanjay Mukherjee) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Kalbande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.W. Sambre, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 19, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondent for willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 02.05.2005 in Writ Petition No.3390/2004. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was directed to commence and complete the developmental activities on the land Khasra no.58/1-G and 58/4 of Mouza Somalwada, Nagpur. According to the petitioner, though the Court had, by an order dated 02.05.2005, recorded a solemn statement of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the developmental activities 2 would be commenced and completed as expeditiously as possible, the respondent had breached the solemn statement made before the Court on 02.05.2005 by not completing the developmental activities till the date of filing of the contempt petition, i.e. till December-2008. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that without completing the third stage for which the petitioner has already deposited the third installment of Rs.6,73,637/-, the respondent had directed the petitioner to deposit the fourth installment of Rs.6,73,637/-. According to the petitioner, the respondent was liable for action under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Shri Sambre, the learned counsel for the respondent, took this Court through the affidavit-in- reply filed by the respondent and stated that the third stage of development work would be completed before the end of June-2009. It is submitted on 3 behalf of the respondent that the respondent made the best possible efforts to complete the development work as early as possible and it cannot be said that the statement/oral undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondent to the Court on 02.05.2005 has been breached or flouted. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, it is clear that the respondent has not willfully breached or flouted the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent in Writ Petition No.3390/2004 on 02.05.2005. The petitioner is satisfied with the statement made by the respondent that the third stage of the work would be completed by the end of June-2009. Since the petitioner has already deposited the amount for the third stage of work, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount due and payable for the fourth stage of work would be paid at the completion of the work of the third stage. 4 For the reasons aforesaid, it is necessary to drop the contempt proceedings against the respondent. The proceedings against the respondent are hereby dropped. The notice issued to the respondent on 23.01.2009 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE APTE