912_CP_459_26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8308 OF 2026 LIC Housing Finance Limited … Petitioner vs. Shrirang Sadashiv Gokhale and another … Respondents Mr. Sanjiv Punalekar a/w. Mr. Sachin K., i/b. Mr. Raghavan Sarathy for petitioner. Mr. Rashid Khan a/w. Mr. Ganpat Monde, i/b. PMH Law for respondents. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : . In the light of the order passed on 09.09.2026, it is brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that all the remaining patients in the hospital have been discharged and shifted. As on today, there is no remaining patient in the hospital. Copy of a certificate issued by the director of the hospital is tendered. The same is taken on record. 2. We find that the respondents appear to have complied with the direction issued by this Court, although belatedly and after much pressure was exerted in the present contempt petition. 3. We had indicated in our order dated 09.09.2026 that the respondents should first comply with their undertaking and shift all the patients from the hospital and thereafter, we would consider as 1/2 PRIYA KAMBLI Digitally signed by PRIYA KAMBLI Date: 2026.09.17 18:42:02 +0530 912_CP_459_26.doc to in what manner, the respondents are to be proceeded against in contempt jurisdiction. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the affidavit-in-reply, an unconditional apology has been tendered in paragraph Nos.2 and 7 thereof. It is submitted that since the respondents have now substantially complied with the directions issued by this Court, indulgence may be shown and the present proceedings may be dropped. 5. Although we find that the respondents did not comply with the directions issued by this Court within the stipulated time period granted by this Court, eventually they have complied with the directions and they have also tendered unconditional apology. Considering the fact that respondent No.1 is a doctor and the hospital was run by doctors, which appears to be facing financial difficulties, we are inclined to accept the plea of showing indulgence made on behalf of the respondents. 6. We further record an undertaking on behalf of the respondents that they shall not act in any manner that would amount to showing disrespect to this Court. They are at liberty to pursue the pending appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in accordance with law. 7. The contempt petition is disposed of in above terms. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 2/2 Priya Kambli