Contempt jurisdiction is limited to compliance review and cannot be used to question the validity of the underlying order.

In contempt proceedings, the court's inquiry is confined to whether the order alleged to have been disobeyed was complied with. It cannot re-open the correctness, validity, or propriety of that order, because doing so would amount to an impermissible exercise of review jurisdiction within contempt. A party aggrieved by the underlying direction must challenge it in appropriate appellate proceedings or seek relief from the issuing court. The impugned order was set aside because it wrongly tested the earlier direction instead of examining compliance, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings for contempt, the Court could examine the correctness or legal tenability of the underlying order and refuse to proceed on that basis.

Analysis: The application was confined to alleged non-compliance with an earlier order. In contempt proceedings, the Court is concerned with whether the order has been obeyed, not with reappreciating its correctness or substituting a different view on what should or should not have been directed. A party aggrieved by the order must challenge it in appropriate appellate proceedings or seek relief from the court that passed it. Entering into the validity of the order would amount to exercising review jurisdiction in contempt, which is impermissible. The impugned order proceeded on an erroneous premise by testing the propriety of the earlier direction instead of examining compliance.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside; the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to re-open or question the legality of the order alleged to have been disobeyed, and the proceeding must be decided only on the issue of compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: In contempt proceedings, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order alleged to have been violated or examine its correctness, validity, or propriety; the only permissible inquiry is whether the order has been obeyed.

---