2010 (11) TMI 1139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the petitioner alleging violation of the order dated 28th August 2007 passed by learned Company Law Board. The said order reads as under: "Heard on interim prayers. I record the statement of the Sr. Counsel for the 2nd Respondent that without prejudice to the arbitration clause, the status quo as on date would be maintained in regard to the lands of the Company as also to the lands referred to in interim prayer(ix) of the application till the next date of hearing." 3. The above order would show that the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of land of the company as also in respect of land referred to in interim prayer (ix) of the application. Prayer (ix) of the application reads as under: - "(ix) pass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioner. The CLB in its order only directed status quo in respect of land mentioned in prayer (ix). Therefore, the order of CLB is that the respondents shall not disturb status quo as explained above, nothing more nothing less. 7. I have heard counsel for both sides. The contention of respondents is that this Court cannot issue any further directions in respect of land as the Court was dealing with contempt petition and the Contempt of Courts Act does not provide for grant of any interim injunction. Reliance is placed by respondents on V.M. Manohar Prasad v N. Ratnam Raju and another (2004) 12 SCC 610. On the other hand, the counsel for petitioner relied upon DDA v Skipper Construction Co.(P) Ltd. and another 1996 (4) SCC 622 and All ....