Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Petitioner seek action to be taken against the respondent for having committed contempt of this Court.

.2. The petitioner has not made any specific reference in the prayer clause to any order, contempt in relation whereto is alleged to have been committed by the respondent. However, in para 18 of the petition it is pleaded as under:

.18. The Petitioner herein and being the Respondent in the aforesaid OMP is filing the present petition to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondent herein, as the Respondent is guilty of willfully disobeying the order and direction passed by the Division Bench of this Honble Court on 27.04.2007 in FAO(OS) No. 384/2006 reaffirming and restoring the order dated 30.03.2006 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said OMP.

3. Indeed, during arguments Shri T.K. Ganju, Senior Advocate who represented the cause of the petitioner alleged that the contempt committed by the respondent is of willful disobedience to the order dated 30.3.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP. No. 118/2006 as also the order passed by the Division Bench on 27.4.2007 in FAO(OS) No. 384/2006, effect whereof was the modification of an earlier order dated 2.6.2006 passed by the Division Bench and as a consequence operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.3.2006 was restored.

.4. Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that the firm M/s Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan of which the respondent is a sole proprietor owed approximately Rs.50 crores to the petitioner as business dues and the matter was referred to arbitration since respondent disputed its liability. Two cheques in sum of Rs.30 crores and Rs. 11 crores respectively had been issued by the respondent drawn on the account of his sole proprietory firm in favor of the petitioner. That the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996 which was registered as OMP. No. 118/2006. Prayer made in the said OMP was to restrain the petitioner from encashing the two cheques in sum of Rs.30 crores and Rs. 11 crores respectively. That taking cognizance of the said petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 crores with the petitioner by means of a pay order within 4 weeks as a condition to injunct the petitioner from not only encashing the two cheques in question but even proceeding ahead to sell the stocks by way of auction.

5. That the respondent filed an appeal against the order dated 30.3.2006 which was registered as FAO(OS) No. 384/2006 in which, treating the order dated 30.3.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge as a consent order, the Division Bench recorded the offer of the respondent that his property bearing No. 6, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi be sold.

6. According to the petitioner, the Division Bench was mislead into passing the order dated 2.6.2007 since the respondent made the court to understand that the property at Alipur Road would fetch Rs. 15 crores. That when put to auction, the property did not receive a bid in excess of Rs.2 crores. That on an application filed before the Division Bench, vide order dated 27.4.2007, the Division Bench restored the order passed by the learned Single Judge, meaning thereby, the respondent was obliged to pay Rs. 15 crores.

7. With reference to the conduct of the respondent it was pointed out that the order dated 27.4.2007 passed by the Division Bench was challenged by way of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Honble Supreme Court wherein vide order dated 18.5.2007 the respondent was granted a stay but on a condition requiring the respondent to deposit Rs.4 crores with the Registration (Judicial) of the Honble Supreme Court by 10.7.2007. That the respondent failed to deposit Rs.4 crores resulting in the interim order granted by the Honble Supreme Court in favor of the respondent being vacated vide order dated 21.9.2007.

8. It was brought