2010 (11) TMI 1139 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Contempt petition seeking directions against respondents for violating a Company Law Board order to maintain status quo on specific land.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses a contempt petition filed by the petitioner, alleging a violation of a Company Law Board (CLB) order dated 28th August 2007. The CLB order directed the parties to maintain status quo concerning a specific piece of land. The petitioner contended that the respondents sought permission from the state government for development activities on the land, which would violate the CLB order. The court clarified that maintaining status quo means not disturbing the factual situation regarding the title, possession, and construction on the land as it existed when the order was passed. The respondents argued that the court could not issue further directions in a contempt petition, citing the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the petitioner relied on precedents indicating that the court has the power to prevent the continuation of disobedience to a restrain order.

The court observed that the CLB order did not grant the specific prayer mentioned in the application but only directed to maintain status quo on the land in question. Referring to relevant case law, the court emphasized its duty to prevent the perpetuation of wrongdoing in disobedience of an injunction. It noted that under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court has the authority to act in the interest of justice and public interest to prevent the violation of an interim injunction. The petitioner also presented information obtained through an RTI query, showing that the respondents were proceeding with development activities on the land in violation of the status quo order.

The court clarified that while there was no bar on corresponding with government authorities for permissions or approvals, the respondents were directed not to undertake any development activities on the land, part with its possession, or transfer its title during the pendency of the petition. It warned that if construction activities altered the status quo, the respondents would be responsible for restoring the land to its original state at their own costs. Failure to comply could lead to the court restoring the land's position through a Court Commissioner. With these directions, the court disposed of the application, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the status quo as directed by the CLB order.