Madras High Court
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd vs Tamilnad Mercantile Bank on 20 March, 2006
Bench: P. Sathasivam, J.A.K. Sampathkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20/03/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR
L.P.A.No.21 of 2005
to
L.P.A.No.25 of 2005
AND
CMP.Nos.17710, 20372,
18032, 18033,
18040,
18042 of 2005,
1398
to
1402 of 2006
and
VCMP.Nos.15 to 19 of 2006
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., having
Registered Office at 57, V E Road
Tuticorin 628 002 rep. by its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. .. Appellant in
LPA.21/2005
B. Ramachandra Adityan .. Appellant in
LPA.22/2005
V. Baskaran
Director
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited
57 V.E. Road Tuticorin 628 002. .. Appellant in
LPA.23/2005
N. Balasubramaanian .. Appellant in
LPA.24/2005
A. Narayanan .. Appellant in
LPA.25/2005
-Vs-
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank
Shareholders Welfare Association
rep. by its Secretary
Mr. M.P.T. Muthuraj
70/12 E. Balavinayagar Koil Street
Thoothukudi 628 002. .. R.1 in all the LPAs.,
S. Radhakrishnan
Chairman and Executive Officer
Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank Limited
57 V.E. Road, Tuticorin 628 002. ..R.2 in LPA.
Nos.22 to 25/05
Letters Patent Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of
Patent against the order of the learned Judge Mr. Justice S. Ashok Kumar
dated 28.09.2005 made in Contempt Petition No.28 of 2005.
!For appellant : Mr. A.L. Somayaji,
Sr.Counsel in LPA.21/05
for Mr.R. Shankaranarayanan
^For appellant : Mr. C. Harikrishnan,
Sr.Counsel
in LPAs.22&23/05
for Mr. H. Karthick Seshadri
For appellant : Mr. N.R. Chandran,
Sr.Counsel
in LPA.24/05
for Mr. S. Mukundan
For appellant : Mr. N.R. Chandran,
Sr.Counsel
in LPA.25/05
for Mr. P. Valliappan
For respondent : Mr. P.S. Raman,
Sr.Counsel
in LPA.21/05
for M/s. Gupta & Ravi
For respondents: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram,
Sr.Counsel
in LPAs.22 to 25 of 2005.
for M/s. Gupta & Ravi
:COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM,J.) Since all the appeals arise out of the very same order of the learned single Judge, they are being disposed of by the following common judgement.
2. Questioning the order dated 28.09.2005 of the learned single Judge made in Contempt Petition No.28 of 2005, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank through its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer has filed LPA.No.21 of 2005. Questioning the same order, B. Ramachandra Adityan, Director of the Bank filed LPA.No.22 of 2005; and V. Baskaran, another Director filed LPA.No.23 of 2005. LPA.No.24 of 2005 is filed by one N. Balasubramaanian and LPA.No.25 of 2005 is filed by A. Narayanan, against the very same order of the learned Judge. In all these appeals Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank Shareholders Welfare Association is the first respondent and the Bank is the second respondent. As said earlier, since all the appeals are filed against the order dated 28.09.2005 made in Contempt Petition No.28 of 2005, for convenience, we shall refer the facts and parties as mentioned in LPA.No.21 of 2005.
3. The first respondent herein, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association filed Contempt Petition No.28 of 2005 to punish the respondent therein, viz., S. Radhakrishnan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, Tuticorin for violating the order dated 23.12.2004 made in O.A.No.1016 of 2004 in C.S.No.981 of 2004. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareho lders Association is the plaintiff in C.S.No.981 of 2004 on the file of Original Side of this Court, wherein Reserve Bank of India, Chennai 600 001, N.S. Srinivasan, Director, RBI Nominee, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. S. Swaminathan, Director, RBI Nominee, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., S.T. Kannan, Director, RBI Nominee, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., are the defendants.
4. The relief sought for in that suit is to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men or servants or any other person claiming under them from preventing the Members whose name is registered in the Register of Members of Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank Ltd., or their duly authorised proxies lodged from participating and exercising their voting rights in the forthcoming Annual General Meeting dated 24.12.2004 or any subsequent date. The plaint is dated 21.12.20 04. In that suit the plaintiff has also filed an interim application, viz., O.A.No.1016 of 2004, praying for an order of interim injunction on the same line. By order dated 23.12.2004, by consent of all the parties, the learned Judge passed the following order.
" 5. ...... If any shareholder has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of any particular person and such General Power of Attorney is duly registered and intimated to the bank as required under Article 85 of the Memorandum of Association of the Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank Limited, such persons who satisfy the requirement of Article 85 of the Memorandum of Association will be permitted to vote in the place of the shareholder who has executed such Power of Attorney in favour of such person. Those shareholders who have not executed such General Power of Attorney, but whose names are found in the Register as Members of Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank shall be permitted to vote and the respondents/defendants should not prevent them from exercising their franchise or participating in the Annual General Meeting.
6. However, in view of the disputes between the parties, the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli is appointed as an Observer to observe the entire proceedings of the Annual General Meeting and file an independent report in a sealed cover before this Court.
7. The Annual General Meeting and other Agenda will go on according to the schedule in the presence of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli who shall act as an Observer. "
5. It is the grievance of the shareholders Association that the said order has been violated since the Power of Attorney Holders whose Power of Attorney was not registered as per the Registration Act, were permitted to participate in the Meeting and they were allowed to vote. It is also their grievance that the shareholders of their Association were prevented from exercising their right; hence, they filed Contempt Petition No.28 of 2005 under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Considering the grievance of the Shareholders' Association, the learned Judge in his order heavily referred the report of the Observer District Judge, Tirunelveli. There is no need to reproduce the same once again. The learned Judge has also referred the letters given by the Members who boycotted the elections objecting to the way in which the Annual General Meeting was conducted. After referring those materials, the learned Judge has concluded that the Annual General Meeting held is an one-sided affair.
6. Before the learned Judge, the Chairman and Executive Officer of Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank has filed a counter affidavit. Among several objections, three have been taken note of by the learned Judge, i. e., (i) the plaint itself is not maintainable and the Court has no jurisdiction; (ii) the respondent, Chairman and Executive Officer, Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank is not a party to the suit, hence he cannot be punished for contempt; and (iii) as per the order of this Court (C.V. Govardhan,J.), Power of Attorneys entered in the Register maintained by the Bank were alone entitled to take part in the proceedings.
7. The learned Judge, after finding that the Chairman and Executive Officer acted on the advise of his counsel given on the basis of the earlier orders of this Court, passed an order warning the respondent to be more careful in future in obeying the orders of the Court and that no further action is called for. However, having arrived at such conclusion, learned Judge has concluded that the proceedings of the Meting as well as the resolutions made are void, as the Meeting itself was conducted in disobedience to the interim order of this Court. The learned Judge declared the proceedings dated 24.12.2004 in the Annual General Meeting are null and void and directed the Bank to conduct a fresh Annual General Meeting within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order by observing all legal formalities and allowing only the persons whose Power of Attorneys have been registered in the Registrar's Office to participate in the deliberations of the Annual General Meeting. By issuing such direction, the learned Judge, closed the contempt petition. Questioning the said order, all the above appeals have been filed by the Bank, its Directors and others.
8. Heard Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Mr. C. Harikrishnan and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel for the appellants Mr. P.S. Raman and Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Leonard senior counsel for the respondents.
9. At the foremost, an objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals. According to the learned senior counsel for the respondents, inasmuch as the order under challenge was passed in a contempt petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the proper remedy is to file Contempt Appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and the Letters Patent Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are not maintainable and all the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
10. Let us first consider the objection relating to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals. The Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank Shareholders Welfare Association filed Contempt Petition No.28 of 2005 under Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act alleging violation of the order dated 23.12.2004 passed in O.A.No.1016 of 2004 in C.S.No.981 of 2004. We have already referred to the order passed in that application as well as the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge in the contempt petition. A reading of the penultimate paragraph of the order of the learned Judge (para
24) makes it clear that the learned Judge has not imposed any punishment, but warned the the respondent, viz., Chairman and Executive Officer, Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank, and held that the proceedings of the Meeting and resolutions passed on 24.1 2.2004 are void, and directed the Bank to conduct a fresh Annual General Meeting by observing all the legal formalities and allowing the persons whose Power of Attorneys have been registered in the Registrar's Office to participate in the deliberations of the Annual General Meeting.
11. Before considering the above objection, let us refer the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
"Section 10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate Courts.Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempt of itself:
Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 19. Appeals. - (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt-
(a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court:
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
(2) .....
(3) ......
(4) ...... "
12. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, makes it clear that an appeal would lie against any order or decision in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In other words, only in the case of punishment, the affected party has right to file an appeal; if it is by a single Judge before a Bench of two Judges and if it is by a Division Bench before the Supreme Court. In the light of the above provisions, it is the claim of the Shareholders Welfare Association that the present appeals, invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are not appropriate.
13. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel for the appellant Bank by drawing our attention to the recent decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (4) Law Weekly 398 (S, Arumuganainar vs. M/s. Jeenath Roadways), wherein the Division Bench considered an identical issue, contended that the present Letters Patent Appeals are maintainable. In that case, the appellant awarded a contract to the respondent for a period of two years in respect of three tanker lorries with effect from 01.09.2000 and in respect of six tanker lorries with effect from 01.11.2000. Detecting some serious violations in respect of two tanker lorries, show cause notices were issued on 31.0 5.2003 and reply was furnished by the respondent claiming that the malpractice was committed by the concerned drivers without the knowledge and connivance of the respondent. On 20.06.2003, an order blacklisting the tanker lorries was passed. Questioning the same writ petitions were filed.
14. Pending the writ petitions, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, numbered as O.A.No.724 of 2003, in which an order was passed on 05.09.2003 staying the operation of the order dated 20.06.2003, except the two tanker lorries involved in the malpractice. While considering the miscellaneous petitions, the writ petitions were taken up for hearing and by common order dated 16.09.2003, the writ petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent filed Writ Appeal Nos.3797 and 3798 of 2003 on 28.10.2003. By the time when the writ appeals were taken up, the respondent had also filed O.P.No.709 of 2003 for appointment of an Arbitrator. Taking note of all the subsequent developments, the Division Bench, disposed of the writ appeals as infructuous. On 21.0 1.2004, the respondent filed Contempt Petition No.53 of 2004, alleging violation of the interim order of stay dated 05.09.2003 in O.A.No.7 24 of 2003. A reply was filed narrating the developments stage by stage. The respondent also filed a rejoinder. A further reply affidavit was filed. The contempt petition was taken up for hearing on 20.06.2004 and disposed of on 29.06.2004. After noticing the contentions raised by both the parties, the learned single Judge closed the contempt petition with the following directions.
" (i) The respondent is hereby directed to give contract work, i.e., transporting the petroleum products to the petitioner, for 6 tanker lorries only, which they have been giving to the petitioner prior to 3 1.05.2003, for a period of 5 months, commencing from 15.07.2004.
(ii) Awarding of contract for further period beyond 5 months, as it is said to have been given to the other tanker lorry owners, may also be considered to the petitioner also. "
15. Aggrieved by the said directions, the respondent therein filed appeal in LPA.No.18 of 2004, invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent in the appeal regarding maintainability of the appeal. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, an appeal can only be filed against the order convicting / punishing a person under the Contempt of Courts Act and since in the present case the appellant has neither been convicted nor punished, the appeal under Section 19 cannot be filed. It is further contended that the Contempt of Courts Act is a special statute containing specific provisions regarding filing of appeal and if the order passed is not appealable in terms of Section 19, no such appeal can be filed. In the factual situation, the Division Bench, after referring Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Madras High Court and various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, ultimately concluded that the letters patent appeal is maintainable and considering the rival contentions raised by both side, disposed of the appeal on merits. It is worthwhile to note that the Division Bench elaborately considered the majority view of the Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by LRS. vs. Andhra Bank Ltd., and others (2004 (11) SCC 672 and para 10 of the judgement of the Division Bench reads as follows:
" 32. ... Further, it is settled law that between a special law and a general law the special law will always prevail. A Letters Patent is a special law for the High Court concerned. The Civil Procedure Code is a general law applicable to all courts. It is well-settled law, that in the event of a conflict between a special law and a general law, the special law must always prevail. We see no conflict between the Letters Patent and Section 104 but if there was any conflict between a Letters Patent and the Civil Procedure Code then the provisions of the Letters Patent would always prevail unless there was a specific exclusion. This is also clear from Section 4 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides that nothing in the Code shall limit or affect any special law. As set out in Section 4 CPC only a specific provision to the contrary can exclude the special law. The specific provision would be a provision like Section 100-A. ...
34. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the reasoning of this Court in the aforesaid decision. The same reasoning would apply in respect of the submission that if it is held that Section 104 (2) did not bar a letters patent appeal an anomalous situation would arise inasmuch as if the matter were to come to the High Court a further appeal would be permitted but if it went to the District Court a further appeal would not lie. An appeal is a creature of a statute. If a statute permits an appeal, it will lie. If a statute does not permit an appeal, it will not lie. Thus, for example, in cases under the Land Acquisition At, the Guardians and Wards Act and the Succession Act, a further appeal is permitted whilst under the Arbitration Act a further appeal is barred. Thus different statutes have differing provisions in respect of appeals. There is nothing anomalous in that. A District Court can not be compared to a High Court which has special powers by virtue of Letters Patent. The District Court does not get a right to entertain a further appeal as it does not have "any law for the time being in force" which permits such an appeal. In any event we find no provisions which permit a larger Bench of the District Court to sit in appeal against an order passed by a smaller bench of that Court. Yet in the High Court even, under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, a larger Bench can sit in appeal against an order of a Single Judge. Section 104 itself contemplates different rights of appeals. Appeals saved by Section 104 (1) can be filed. Those not saved will be barred by Section 104 (2). We see nothing anomalous in such a situation. Consequently, the plea of discrimination urged before us must be rejected. "
After referring the above passage, the Division Bench has concluded, "11. In our opinion, there is nothing in the majority view which in any way postulates that the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would be barred merely because the impugned order in the contempt petition is not appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. "
In addition to the same, they also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 14.08.1990 in C.A.No.5 of 1990 and Letters Patent Appeal No.123 of 1990 (Vidya Charan Shukla vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association), 1993 (2) Law Weekly 225 (R. Rajagopal vs. M.P. Chellamuthu and 3 others) and 1996 (6) SCC 291 (J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and others) and concluded that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable.
16. On going through the relevant provision, viz., Section 19 of the Contempts of Courts Act, the judgement of the Supreme Court as well as other decisions referred to by the Division Bench in the above said case, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench, and considering the fact that similar issue arises in our appeal and in the light of various directions issued by the learned Judge and of the fact that the parties affected therein were not before the learned Judge, we hold that the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patents are maintainable.
17. Now, let us consider, (a) whether the reasonings of the learned Judge, followed by directions relating to the Annual General Meeting held on 24.12.2004 are sustainable; and (b) whether such directions are permissible while disposing of contempt petition.
18. With regard to point (a), learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants brought to our notice that the learned Judge failed to consider that in the Annual General Meeting held on 24.12.2004, the Chairman of the meeting has to follow not only the order passed in O.A.No.1016 of 2004 dated 24.12.2004, but also (a) the earlier order in Contempt Application No.331 of 1995; (b) order of the Company law Board in C.A.No.46 of 2004; (c) confirmation order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CMA.No.55 of 2004; and (d) compromise decree passed by the District Munsif, Thoothukudi in O.S.No.479 of 1995.
19. In the Contempt Application No.331 of 1995, Govardhan,J., in his order dated 22.04.1996 on the application filed by Power of Attorneys, after finding that the Chairman and the Executive Officer of Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank committed contempt of Court by disobeying the orders in O.A.No.183 of 1995, directed them to pay fine. The grievance of the applicants therein is that the first respondent therein, i.e., Chairman, Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank refused to register the Power of Attorney and acted in a contemptuous manner. The learned Judge accepted the said contention and awarded punishment of fine as stated above.
20. The Company Law Board in its order dated 13.07.2004 made in Company Application No.46 of 2004 has observed that, in regard to the provisions of Article 85 of the Articles of Association of the Company, the issue has already been settled by the Madras High Court in contempt proceedings that in terms of Article 85, right to register the Power of Attornies is vested only with the company and not with the Registration Authority. It has been further observed that since the Power of Attornies have been registered with the company, they are entitled to appoint proxies.
21. The above said order of the Company Law Board was challenged by way of appeal in C.M.A.No.55 of 2004 before this Court. The only question that was considered by the Division Bench is, whether the finding of the Company Law Board that the Chairman was right in allowing the proxies of the powers of attorney holders to exercise votes and taking the votes into consideration, is right under the facts and circumstances of the case? After analysing the issue and after finding that there is no error or illegality in the order of the Company Law Board made in C.P.No.15 of 2003 and C.A.No.46 of 2004, the Division Bench, dismissed CMA.No.55 of 2004.
22. The other relevant material is decree dated 03.10.1996 of the District Munsif, Thoothukudi in O.S.No.479 of 1995. A perusal of the decree shows that the proxies of powers of attorney holders were entitled to exercise their voting right. The said suit came to be filed by the power of attorney holders against Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank.
23. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, based on the above mentioned orders, legal opinion was offered to the Chairman of the Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank in the Annual General Meeting held on 24.12.2004. It is not the case of the respondents that the order passed in O.A.No.1016 of 2004 dated 23.12.2004 was alone to be followed and other orders as mentioned above are to be ignored. In fact, the learned single Judge failed to take note of the earlier orders, though the Chairman considered all those orders in the Annual General Meeting held on 24.12.2004. Though it is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the learned single Judge referred to the above mentioned orders, by reading of all the orders, i.e., order in Contempt Application No.331 of 1995, Order of the Company Law Board in C.A.No.46 of 2004, confirmation order of this Court in CMA.No.55 of 2004 and the compromise decree dated 03 .10.1996 made in O.S.No.479 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Thoothukudi, we are unable to share the view expressed by the learned Judge and we are also satisfied that such conclusion cannot be arrived at. Further, as rightly pointed out, before issuing directions in paragraph 24 of his order, the learned single Judge did not consider or take note of the fact that parties to be affected by such direction were not before him, since in the contempt petition, except Chairman, Tamilnad Mercanti1e Bank, none had been impleaded as parties.
24. With regard to point (b), it is not in dispute that while disposing of the contempt petition No.28 of 2005, the learned Judge gave a specific finding that the proceedings in the meeting held on 24.12.2 004 and resolutions passed therein are null and void and after holding so, directed the Bank to conduct a fresh Annual General Meeting within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. It is the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant Bank, Directors and others that in contempt proceeding, the court is concerned only with the question that the earlier directions are complied with or not and it cannot traverse beyond it and directions are not warranted when the persons to be affected are not before him. Heavy reliance was placed on the recent decisio n of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Subedar Devassy PV ( 2006 (1) SCC 613). As in the present case, against the issuance of certain directions by the Court while disposing of the contempt petition filed under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Union of India and others challenged the same before the Supreme court. The following observation of the Hon' ble Supreme Court are relevant:-
"2. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different from what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari vs. Union of India (2001 (10) SCC 496 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 756). The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgement or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher court. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself the power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgement or order. Though strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellants on a three-Judge Bench decision in Niaz Mohd. vs. State of Haryana (1994 (6) SCC 332), we find that the same has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the question arose about the impossibility to obey the order. If that was the stand of the appellants, the least it could have done was to assail correctness of the judgement before the higher court. "
"6. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against the rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. "
In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the directions issued by the learned Judge particularly, when the parties to be affected are not before him are not warranted and liable to be set aside.
25. Under the circumstances, we are of the firm view that the directions issued in paragraph 24 of the impugned order are not warranted. Accordingly, the order dated 28.09.2005 made in Contempt Petition No.28 of 2005 of the learned single Judge is set aside. Consequently, all the Letters Patent Appeals are allowed. No costs.
In view of the disposal of the main appeals, connected stay petition and vacate stay petitions are closed; the dispense-with petition is ordered and as no order is required in the impleading petition, the same is closed. In view of the request made in CMP.No.20372 of 2006, time is extended to hold the 83rd Annual General Meeting by 30.06.20 06.
Index:Yes Internet:Yes kh