Wilful disobedience of status quo orders over disputed structures justified contempt recourse before the High Court.

Wilful disobedience of restraint orders maintaining status quo over disputed structures was found where the record, including the Advocate Commissioner's report, photographs and the respondents' own memo, showed demolition had progressed and been completed. The explanation of prior demolition or safety-related removal was rejected for want of contemporaneous disclosure and convincing proof. The Board also treated its statutory and inherent powers as sufficient to address abuse of process, and recognised that contempt action could be pursued before the High Court for disobedience of a subordinate quasi-judicial body's orders. The apologies tendered were found unsatisfactory and no action under Section 15(2) was called for.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents violated the restraint orders directing maintenance of status quo over the structures in question; (ii) Whether the Company Law Board had power to proceed against such disobedience and invoke contempt jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents violated the restraint orders directing maintenance of status quo over the structures in question.

Analysis: The orders required the respondents to maintain the existing structures and not demolish them. The Advocate Commissioner's report, photographs, and the respondents' own memo showed that demolition was in progress and had been completed in respect of the disputed structures. The explanation that most demolition had already occurred earlier, or that the remaining portion was removed for safety reasons, was not supported by contemporaneous disclosure, leave of the Bench, or convincing evidence.

Conclusion: The respondents were held to have acted in gross violation of the orders of the Bench.

Issue (ii): Whether the Company Law Board had power to proceed against such disobedience and invoke contempt jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Board's regulatory powers and inherent authority were treated as sufficient to address abuse of process. The Board was held to possess the attributes of a court for the limited purpose of contempt, and the High Court's jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act was considered available for contempt of a subordinate court. However, as no criminal contempt punishable under the Penal Code was established, reference under Section 15(2) was not warranted. The apologies tendered on behalf of the company were found unsatisfactory and not accepted.

Conclusion: The Board held that the petitioner may move the High Court for appropriate contempt action under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but no action under Section 15(2) was called for before the Board.

Final Conclusion: The applications were disposed of after recording wilful violation of the restraint orders and leaving the petitioner to pursue contempt remedies before the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial body vested with statutory powers and inherent authority may treat wilful disobedience of its orders as an abuse of process, and where its status as a court for contempt purposes is recognised, the aggrieved party may seek contempt action before the High Court as the superior court.

---