ORDER

We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties at length.

This contempt petition is directed against the order passed by this Court on 16th April, 2007 whereby the Respondent-Contemnor has not shown any deference of complying the aforesaid order. Therefore, the petitioner herein has approached this Court by filing the present contempt petition. The order against which the contempt petition is directed reads as under :

“We modify the order passed by this Court dated 12.2.2007 and the order passed by the High Court dated 22.12.2006* is restored subject to the condition that in case the respondent does not lift the 30,000 MTs of iron ore per month then it will be open for the appellant to sell it in the open market. He will supply 30,000 MTs of iron ore per month on the same terms and conditions as per the agreement and payment shall be made by demand drafts. This order shall be subject to the final order to be passed by this Court. We request the Arbitrator to dispose of the arbitral proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from today.”

But unfortunately, the respondent herein, despite the afore¬said order did not comply this order till today. In a reply to contempt petition by the respondent, the respondent took two stands; one, that the petitioner was not having a trading licence and second, that the petitioner declined to accept the iron ore as it said to be less than the required iron content. It was only 35% FE. Therefore, he has not committed any contempt of this Court and he has faithfully abide by this Court’s order. In a detailed affidavit filed by the respondent, he tried to justify that he had at all the time tried to obtain a transit permit but he could not secure the same on account of petitioner not having a trading licence. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit submitted that throughout he had the trading licence except for a limited period i.e. from December 7, 2007 to March, 2008 but for the rest of the period he always had the trading licence.

Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent at a great length tried to persuade that the respondent was in all bona fide tried to comply with the order of this Court but for the reason beyond his control he could not do so and in that connection, he took two aforesaid pleas. Dr. A.M.Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that after this order was passed on 16th April, 2007 the respondent-contemnor tried to avoid this order by moving one after the other applications for modification but he did not succeed before this Court getting the order modified. He also invited our attention to the order passed on 24th September, 2007 where this Court expressed a great displeasure on the part of the respondent to make a futile attempt to seek modification order. This Court in its order dated 24th September, 2007 observed as under :

“This Court had earlier passed an Order dated 16.4.2007 after hearing counsels for parties. Thereafter I.A.No. 1 was dismissed by the Court on 16.5.2007 after hearing counsel. We cannot appreciate this practice of filing I.A. after I.A. on the same matter an order was passed after hearing counsels for both parties. It will be a review, or a review of a review, which should not be encouraged. I.A.No. 2 is hence dismissed.”

Dr. Singhvi then pointed out that he had at all the time trading licence and the plea raised by the petitioner that he had no trading licence is false and without any basis and he also pointed out that Respondent Contemnor moved applications before the mining authorities for permission of supply of iron ore to others with requisite percentage of 65% iron content. Whenever the supply to petitioner came, he tried to throw a stack of iron ore of 35% FE.

We have bestowed our best of the consideration to lengthy arguments by both the learned counsels, but we are constrained to say that the way the present respondent has beh