Supervening Supreme Court direction displaced enforcement of an earlier inquiry order and barred contempt proceedings in High Court.

A request to enforce an earlier preliminary inquiry order and to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC could not be pursued after the Supreme Court directed that the Company Law Board decide the company petition and the Section 340 application, and stated that the High Court need not continue with the criminal miscellaneous proceedings. The supervening direction displaced further action on the earlier High Court order, which could not be independently enforced in that forum. The controversy was therefore required to be addressed before the forum identified by the Supreme Court, leaving no maintainable contempt proceeding before the High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application seeking enforcement of the earlier order and initiation of contempt proceedings survived after the Supreme Court directed that the Company Law Board decide the disputes and that the High Court need not proceed further with the criminal miscellaneous proceedings.

Analysis: The application arose out of a request to proceed with a complaint under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and to enforce an earlier order passed for preliminary inquiry into the alleged forgery of AGM minutes. The subsequent order of the Supreme Court directed that the Company Law Board would decide the company petition as well as the application under Section 340, and further stated that the High Court need not proceed further with the criminal miscellaneous proceedings. In view of that supervening direction, the earlier order of the High Court could not be independently acted upon, and the controversy had to be decided in the forum identified by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable before the High Court and no contempt case was made out.

---