Apology must be unconditional voluntary and genuine.

The applicant in his affidavit contends briefly as follows: The deponent is the General Manager of the applicant. The applicant had entered into various agreements with the respondents for the purchase of approximately 40% undivided share in premises at Door No.43-44, Montieth Road, Madras-8. The respondents has filed his report. From the report of the Commissioner, it is evident that the respondents have continued to carry on the construction work in violation of the orders of this Court. The first respondent is a limited company in which the second respondent is the Managing Director. Since the respondents have violated the orders of this Court and committed contempt of court, they have to be punished. Hence the application.

2. The second respondent in his counter contends briefly as follows: The 2nd respondent tenders his unconditional apology for his violation of the order of this Court. It was not intentional or mischievous, but due to circumstances. This Court has passed orders of interim injunction, restraining the respondents from proceeding further with any work in the mezzanine floor and the fourth floor of the building. The Commissioner’s report would show that there is no violation of the order passed by this Court. After the orders have been passed, the second respondent has not carried on any construction activity in the mezzanine and fourth floors. The Commissioner’s report shows that in the mezzanine floor certain items of work were not completed and in the fourth floor some workers were working on the over head tank, which is intended to provide water for the entire building premises. The report also mentions that the lift motor head room was worked on and that a big room adjacent to the over head tank was being constructed. It was not the intention of this Court to prevent the completion of the over head tank or the lift room. This is because these items of work are essential even for the applicant to be able to occupy the premises. If the respondents have failed to construct the over head tank or the lift room, the entire building would have remained unoccupied. It was not the intention of this Court to prevent the completion of structures providing basic amenities to the building. The application may, therefore, be dismissed.

3. The applicant in his reply statement contends as follows: On the date of the order, the mezzanine floor and the fourth floor work were not constructed completely. Despite the same, the respondents have handed over a portion of the premises in the mezzanine floor to one “HMA DATA SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED” in a completed stage and have also completed construction of another portion in mezzanine floor for handing over to “CRISIL”. The respondents have violated the orders of this Court and have committed contempt. They are liable to be punished.

4. This contempt application has been filed by the applicant- plaintiff alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 have violated the order of this Court passed in O.A. No.1078 of 1993 in C.S. No.1806 of 1993 restraining them from proceeding further with any work in any manner in the Mezzanine Floor and fourth floor of the commercial building, Thaper House and therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. The first respondent is a Private Limited Company of which the second respondent is the Managing Director.

5. The second respondent in his counter has stated that it was not an intentional or mischievous, but due to circumstances violation of the orders of this Court has been committed and he is tendering unconditional apology. The second respondent has also stated in his counter that the Commissioner’s report shows that in the mezzanine floor, certain items of work were not completed and in the fourth floor some workers were working on the overhead tank, which is intended to provide water for the entire building premises and that the report also mentions that the lift motor head room was worked on