JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:—Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the respondents/contemners.

2.The complaint of the petitioners relates to non-compliance of the direction issued by this Court on 7-3-2000 in relation to inspection of share registers of the respondent No. 1/contemner and also regarding non-compliance of the order dated 4-5-2000 of this Court giving direction to the respondent No. 2 to deposit 250000 shares as well as 19500 duplicate shares of the first respondent. Though the original complaint also related to some other grievances, the same were specifically given up by the petitioners in the course of hearing of the matter.

3.By order dated 7-3-2000, the respondent No. 1 herein, who was the respondent No. 2 in Chamber Summons No. 1366 of 1999 in Execution Application No. 329 of 1997 in Arbitration Petition No. 112 of 1997 in relation to the Award No. 79 of 1997, it was directed that the respondent No. 2 should give inspection of the share registers to the petitioners for verification of the facts stated by the second respondent herein in his affidavit dated 3-3-2000, filed in the said chamber summons. It is the case of the petitioners that the said direction was not complied with by the respondents and therefore they have committed contempt of Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioners, drawing attention to the further orders passed by this Court in the said chamber summons, has submitted that inspite of repeated opportunities being given to produce the said share registers, the respondents failed to comply with the said direction. In that regard, attention was drawn to the order dated 1-3-2001, 19-4-2001 as well as 13-6-2003 in the present petition. Undoubtedly, by order dated 13-6-2003 passed in this contempt petition, it was directed to the respondent No. 2 herein to produce in the Court the share registers in order to enable him to comply with the order dated 7-3-2000. However, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, referring to the order of the learned Single Judge of 19-4-2001 in Chamber Summons No. 1366 of 1999, submitted that inspection in terms of the order dated 7-3-2000 was already given and this fact is reflected from the said order dated 19-4-2001. Indeed, the relevant portion of the order dated 19-4-2001 reads thus:-

"In these proceedings, by order dated 1st March, 2001, this Court issued certain directions in respect of issuance of advertisement for the purpose of issuance of duplicate shares of Asian Food Products Ltd., and in respect of production of share registers as maintained, according to law, by the respondents.

Accordingly, the said share registers are brought by the respondents before the Court. It is stated at the bar that the inspection thereof is already taken. ........."

The above recording apparently disclose that the respondents had produced the records pertaining to the registers of the shares for inspection by the petitioners and, in fact, they were inspected. Undoubtedly, it is sought to be contended that those registers were fabricated documents and in that regard grievance was made by the petitioners even at the time when the order dated 19-4-2001 was passed. No doubt, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners at the time of passing of the order dated 19-4-2001 appears to have alleged several defects in the documents. However, the fact remains that the respondent had produced the records for inspection of the petitioners. If there is any defect in the said documents or the records, certainly the petitioners are entitled to bring the said fact to the notice of the Court in appropriate proceedings. However, that cannot be a subject-matter for adjudication in contempt proceedings. At the same time, it is also a matter of record that by order dated 13-6-2003 the respondents were directed to produce the share registers in terms of the order dated 7-3-2000. Once there is a categorical statement on behalf of the respondents that they had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document