Merger doctrine and subsequent events could not displace compliance with an upheld direction or defeat contempt notice.

A contempt notice based on non-compliance with an operative direction was sustained because the plea of merger did not, at that stage, oust the forum's jurisdiction or negate wilful disobedience. The challenge also failed since the materials did not warrant interference merely on issuance of notice. A separate request to modify the direction for appointment of government directors was rejected because that direction had already been upheld through the appellate chain, and subsequent events or alleged financial turnaround did not permit alteration by the same forum. The common order was affirmed, with liberty only to file a reply in the contempt proceedings and place later developments before the Tribunal below in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contempt notice issued by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction in view of the earlier orders and the doctrine of merger, and whether wilful disobedience was made out; (ii) Whether the order directing appointment of government directors could be modified on the basis of subsequent events and changed circumstances.

Issue (i): Whether the contempt notice issued by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction in view of the earlier orders and the doctrine of merger, and whether wilful disobedience was made out.

Analysis: The appeal against the contempt notice raised the plea that the original order had merged in the Supreme Court's final order and that contempt, if any, could not be pursued before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, treated the contempt proceedings as arising from non-compliance with the operative direction concerning government directors and not as a matter beyond its competence. The materials also did not justify interference at the stage of issuance of notice. The plea of absence of wilful disobedience was not accepted at that stage.

Conclusion: The challenge to the contempt notice failed and the notice was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the order directing appointment of government directors could be modified on the basis of subsequent events and changed circumstances.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the direction for appointment of two government directors had been upheld through the appellate chain and that the Supreme Court's observation permitting the appellant to agitate subsequent events before the appropriate forum did not authorise modification or cancellation of the earlier direction by the Tribunal. The Tribunal further held that the Supreme Court's direction to conclude proceedings as far as possible within one year reinforced compliance with the existing order. The asserted financial turnaround and passage of time were therefore insufficient to displace the subsisting direction.

Conclusion: The application for modification was correctly rejected.

Final Conclusion: Both appeals were dismissed and the common order of the Tribunal below was affirmed, with liberty only to file a reply in the contempt proceedings and place subsequent developments before the Tribunal below in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A direction upheld through the appellate hierarchy cannot be modified merely because subsequent events are asserted, unless the competent forum is legally empowered to alter the subsisting order; a plea of merger or changed circumstances does not by itself oust contempt jurisdiction or negate compliance with the operative command.

---