1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2010 along with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8543 OF 2003 Smt. Sangita Bhagwan Mali & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. Shri S.K.Tyagi, the Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation Respondent Mr. N.M.Ganguli. Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.P.M.Pradhan,Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 15th April, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent objects to the tenability of the Contempt Petition on the ground of delay beyond the period of limitation of one year. Without entering into that controversy, assuming that the delay could be condoned while exercising powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, I find that the order passed by this Court on 24.8.2007 has been complied with by the 2 respondent. As per that order, the respondent was directed to make its own calculations in respect of the retiral benefits due and payable to the respondent (contempt petitioner) and to pay the said amount within four weeks. That amount was paid by a cheque dated 10.6.2008. Thus, it appears that though there was a delay, the amount was paid and there was substantial compliance of the order dated 24.8.2007. I do not see any justification to take any action for contempt merely because of delay in complying with that order. If the contempt petitioners have any grievance about the delay, they can point out the same before the appropriate Court in Writ Petitin No.8543 of 2003 which is still pending. The Contempt Petition as well as the Civil Application No.25 of 2009 stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)