Criminal contempt jurisdiction not invoked for alleged prejudicial media coverage in a pending company dispute.

Allegations that newspaper publications and commentaries were intended to prejudice a pending company dispute were held insufficient, on the materials placed, to justify exercise of criminal contempt jurisdiction. The Board considered the claimed influence on the public and the adjudicatory process, but found no adequate basis on the facts presented to initiate contempt proceedings. The request for contempt action was therefore rejected, leaving the applicants to pursue any other remedy available before the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal contempt proceedings should be initiated on the basis of the alleged prejudicial newspaper publications concerning a pending company dispute.

Analysis: The applications were founded on the allegation that the respondents had published news items and commentaries with a slanted view to influence the public and the adjudicatory process in relation to a matter pending before the Company Law Board. The materials placed on record were considered, but the Court did not find a sufficient basis to invoke the contempt jurisdiction on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The request to initiate criminal contempt proceedings was rejected, and the applications were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: No contempt action was initiated on the facts and materials placed before the Court, and the applicants were left to pursue any available remedy before the appropriate forum.

---