Judgment :- Heard Ms. Gladys Daniel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, on 30.12.2004, in O.A.No.1023 of 2004 in C.S.No.983 of 2004. 3. It is submitted that the second petitioner and the respondents were partners in the first petitioner firm. While so, they were jointly using the trade mark PEACOCK in the course of their dhall business, since 1963. On 01.07.2000, the respondents had retired from the partnership firm on receiving their share of the benefits and they had given up their claims of proprietary right in the trade mark PEACOCK in favour of the petitioner firm and its partners. On retirement from the original partnership, the respondents had constituted a new firm and started using the trade mark ELEPHANT in the business of sale of dhall. Since the respondents had found it difficult to market their products using the trade mark ELEPHANT, they had resumed using of the trade mark PEACOCK infringing on the rights of the first petitioner firm and its present partners. Therefore, the civil suit had been filed before this Court in C.S.No.983 of 2004 for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein and their men and others claiming through them from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale or using the plaintiffs copyright in the pictorial representation of the trade mark Sri Ayyanar Dhall Mills PEACOCK and for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the respondents and others claiming through them from manufacturing, marketing, exporting, distributing, offering or advertising for sale all kinds of dhalls using the trade mark or using the word mark PEACOCK and for other consequential relief’s. .4. The petitioner had also filed Original Application in O.A.No.1023 of 2004 for an interim relief, restraining the respondents and others from using the trade mark PEACOCK as prayed for therein. This Court by an order, dated 30.12.2004, had passed an order, by an order of interim injunction, restraining the respondents from using the trade mark Ayyanar Dhall Mills prints. In spite of the said order, passed by this Court, on 30.12.2004, the respondents had continued to use the prohibited trade mark during the course of their dhall business. This Court by an order, dated 30.12.2004, had passed an order, by an order of interim injunction, restraining the respondents from using the trade mark Ayyanar Dhall Mills prints. In spite of the said order, passed by this Court, on 30.12.2004, the respondents had continued to use the prohibited trade mark during the course of their dhall business. Thus, the respondents have committed contempt of Court by willfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 30.12.2004, in O.A.No.1023 of 2004 in C.S.No.983 of 2004. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the submissions made by the petitioners have been denied. It has been stated that the Deed of Retirement executed by the respondents 3,4,7 and 8 in relation to the family firms are the subject matter of the dispute in O.S.No.276 of 2000, on the file of the District Court, Gulburga, Karnataka. The respondents had also denied the claim made by the petitioners that the respondents, having received the benefits, had given up their claim of proprietary right in relation to the Trade Mark "PEACOCK" in favour of the first petitioner firm and its partners. No consideration had passed under the alleged Deeds of Retirement towards the Trade Mark or Copy Right. The amounts received were those which were standing to the credit of the respective partners. The Copy Right and Trade Mark belonged to the members of the family and the respondents had not given up their proprietary rights in regard to the same. 6. It has also been stated on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners had approached this Court with a false plea that the respondents had stopped using their Trade mark after exchange of notices in the year 2000 and that they had resumed using in the year 2004. Only, on 10.02.2005, the respondents were informed about the order of interim injunction and immediately thereafter, steps had been taken to stop using the Trade mark Peacock Gold in the invoices. With regard to the advertisements in the Kannada Weekly Manish Merchant Reports, it has been stated that the advertisements were being published based on an annual subscription. Once it was realized that the advertisements were published in the issues, dated 01.03.2005, 08.03.2005 and 22.03.2005, a written communication had been sent to the publisher to stop the advertisements. With regard to the advertisements in the Kannada Weekly Manish Merchant Reports, it has been stated that the advertisements were being published based on an annual subscription. Once it was realized that the advertisements were published in the issues, dated 01.03.2005, 08.03.2005 and 22.03.2005, a written communication had been sent to the publisher to stop the advertisements. Thus, there was no willful or intentional disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, on 30.12.2004. The mistake had happened only due to the misunderstanding of the lawyers notice and due to lack of legal knowledge. .7. In the additional counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegation of the petitioners that the respondents had continued to use the Peacock Logo on the products of the respondents has been denied. The respondents had stopped using the gunny bags with the Peacock logo after they were made aware of the order of interim injunction passed by this Court. Further, the respondents had tendered their unconditional apology for their acts or omissions. 8. At the time of the hearing of the contempt petition, a memo, dated 15.02.2008, signed by the petitioners, as well as the counsel for the petitioners, had been filed before this Court to withdraw the contempt petition as not pressed. However, instead of permitting the petitioner to withdraw the contempt petition, as such permission is normally denied for matters being heard under the contempt jurisdiction, this contempt petition is closed, on merits, taking into consideration the averments made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the records available before this Court. Further, the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondents for contempt of Court for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 30.12.2004, made in O.A.No.1023 of 2004, in C.S.No.983 of 2004, as prayed for in the contempt petition.