Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to seek fresh substantive reliefs or criminal contempt directions beyond alleged disobedience.

Contempt jurisdiction is limited to enforcing compliance with an earlier order and cannot be expanded to obtain fresh substantive reliefs. A request to initiate criminal contempt and to direct a report on alleged tampering of forensic audit materials was held outside the permissible scope of contempt proceedings, because those prayers sought directions beyond mere disobedience. The additional prayers were rejected and the contempt application was dismissed, while the allegations of non-compliance were left to be considered in the connected contempt matter.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contempt application could be entertained for the additional prayers seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings and a direction to file a report on the alleged tampering of a forensic audit report, and whether such reliefs fell within the scope of contempt jurisdiction.

Analysis: The application already covered allegations of disobedience of the earlier judgment in a separate contempt case that was fixed for hearing after the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court. The additional prayer for criminal contempt was not justified in the circumstances, and the request for a report on the forensic audit materials sought substantive directions that could not be granted in contempt proceedings. Contempt jurisdiction is confined to examining alleged disobedience and cannot be used to secure fresh substantive reliefs outside the original company proceedings.

Conclusion: The additional prayers were rejected, and the contempt application was dismissed, while leaving open the allegations of disobedience to be considered in the connected contempt matter.

---