other authority to the effect that the development agreement is not enforceable, valid or binding upon them. Defendant Nos. 3(a) and 3(b) were also restrained from addressing any correspondence to and/or taking any steps before the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and/or delay the development of the suit property. It is the grievance of the original Plaintiff in the present Contempt Petition that in spite of this order, a letter was addressed by the learned Advocate of Defendant Nos. 3(a) and 3(b) to the Municipal Corporation complaining about the development of the suit property by the original Plaintiff under the development agreement dated 7 November 2007. After the matter was heard at some length, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos. 3(a) and 3(b), on instructions of Defendant No.3(b), who is present in Court, undertakes to the Court that Defendant Nos. 3(a) and 3(b) shall through the learned Advocate withdraw the communication addressed to the Municipal Corporation on 30 September 2013, which is annexed as Exhibit “I” to the Contempt Petition, within a period of one week from today. The learned advocate on behalf of himself as well as his clients, Defendant Nos. 3(a) and 3(b), tenders an unconditional apology for having addressed the communication of 30 September 2013 to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The undertaking and apology tendered by the learned Advocate are accepted by the Court, and the Contempt Petition is disposed of.
