- (1.) THE above three applications (G. A. No. 3232 of 2008, G. A. No. 3233 of 2008 and G. A. No. 3234 of 2008) have been taken out by the Samantha fay (Respondent No. 3), Nadine Causey (Respondent No. 4) and Bruce steinberg (Respondent No. 9) respectively in the pending contempt application. All these applications have been taken out with a prayer for exemption of all of them and or causing them from appearing in person before this Hon'ble Court pursuant to Rule issued by this Court in the aforesaid contempt application. The grounds set out by the aforesaid respective applicants are distinct and separate, and those are absolutely individualistic in nature and the same needs to be set out briefly : samantha Fay (Respondent No. 3) in her application she has stated that she holds any order passed by the Hon'ble Court in the highest regard. At no time she even had or has intention of disobeying order, or flouting direction of the Hon'ble Court. She always followed instructions to the best of her ability and in good faith. However, for any lapse that may have occurred, even if inadvertently, in complying with the order dated March 22, 2008, she tenders unconditional apology. She states further that she may not be required to undertake very long and strenuous journey to India from the United Kingdom involving considerable time and substantial expense. She states further that she has been on maternity leave since 24th March, 2007 for a period of 12 months and, since she has a very small baby, the journey to India would be particularly onerous for her.
(2.) IN the affidavit in opposition the aforesaid statement of undergoing maternity leave and having given birth to a child has not been denied and disputed. Therefore, these facts are deemed to have been admitted and there is no difficulty for the Court to accept such statement as being true though no document has been annexed to the petition. Whetherthis ground is good and sufficient to exempt her or not is to be discussed and decided a little later.
(3.) NADINE Causey (Respondent No. 9): In paragraph 8 of her petition she had made statement purporting to make ground for exemption that she may not be required to undertake very long and strenuous journey to India from United Kingdom involving substantial time and expense. This apart she has also stated that order has been carried out and fact of compliance has been stated in affidavit affirmed and filed in the application. Therefore, she should not be compelled to come personally to contest this application.;