The main legal point established is that the Company Law Board has the power to enforce its orders, whether interim or final, and to take action against disobedience, and that it would be appropriate for the parties to seek necessary reliefs from the Board.

Mr. N. Kumar, J.

This contempt petition is filed complaining of disobedience of orders dated 23.09.2014 and 18.11.2014 passed by Company Law Board in Co.P. No. 54/2014.

2. By an order dated 23.09.2014 the Company Law Board granted an ad interim relief. The said order was continued until further orders by an order dated 18.11.2014. However, the relevant order for our purpose reads as under:

"The Respondents are hereby restrained from diverting the business if any of the respondent No. 1 company either directly or indirectly to respondent No. 10 or any other Company until 19.11.2014."

Complaining disobedience of this order, this petition is filed invoking the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties regarding maintainability of a contempt petition.

4. Learned Counsel for complainant contends in the Companies Act, 1956 there is no specific provision for proceeding against a person who had disobeyed the orders of the Board. However, Section 634A which provides for enforcement of orders of Company Law Board deals only with final orders. More over by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002, said proviso has been made inapplicable. On the contrary Regulation 47 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 declares that a Bench shall be deemed to be a Court. or lawful authority for the purpose of prosecution or punishment of a person who wilfully disobeyed any direction or order of such Bench and therefore he submits that this petition filed before this Court under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents submitted the complainant has filed C.A. No. 1 and C.A. No. 7 before the Company Law Board for taking action against respondent for disobeying the Court order. Therefore as the complainant has a remedy before the Tribunal itself, this Court entertaining contempt petition would not arise. Learned Counsel for appellant in support of his contention has relied upon several Judgments. One of such Judgment is the Judgment of Apex Court in the case of E. Bapanaiah v. K.S. Raju and Others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 451 where the Apex Court has held as under:

"28. The present case relates to a civil contempt wherein an undertaking given to the Company Law Board is breached. Normally, the general provisions made under the Contempt of Courts Act are not invoked by the High Courts for forcing a party to obey orders passed by its subordinate Courts for the simple reason that there are provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to get executed its orders and decrees. It is settled principle of law that where there are special law and general law, the provisions of special law would prevail over general law. As such, in normal circumstances a decree-holder cannot take recourse of the Contempt of Courts Act else it is sure to throw open a floodgate of litigation under contempt jurisdiction. It is not the object of the Contempt of Courts Act to make decree-holders rush to the High Courts simply for the reason that the decree passed by the subordinate Court is not obeyed. However, there is no such procedure prescribed to execute order of CLB particularly after proviso is added to Section 634-A of the Companies Act, 1956, vide Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002."

6. However, exercising power conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India they granted the relief.

7. From the aforesaid Judgment of Supreme Court it is clear if the order passed by an authority which is sub-ordinate to the High Court has the power to take action for disobedience of orders passed by it, even if the High Court has jurisdiction to take such action under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court should not entertain such petitions, as otherwise flood gate of litigation under the contempt jurisdiction would disrupt the working of High Court. In the aforesaid Judgment a