( 1 ) KRIPALU Co-operative Housing Society Limited is respondent No. 1 to the petition. It is hereinafter referred to as the Society for the sake of brevity. The petitioner was admitted to the membership of the society in July 1973 The society then bad been con- structing residential flats. In 1977 the construction had been in progress During that very year the society passed a resolution expelling the petitioner from its membership. The petitioner challenged that resolution before the Board of Nominees constituted under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. On 26/05/1978 the Board of Nominees issued an ad interim injunction restraining respondents Nos. 2 to 10; the other members of the society from taking possession of the flats under construction and restraining the society from handing over possession of those flats to respondents Nos. 2 to 10. The Board of Nominees also stayed the implementation of the resolution which was challenged before it.

( 2 ) ON 27/05/1978 a Commissioner was appointed by the Board of Nominees to report on the state of construction of the fiats in question. The Commissioner after inspecting the site reported that the society had not handed over possession of the flats in question to respondents Nos. ; 2 to 10 and that respondent Nos. 2 to 10 had not taken their possession The flats under construction were not complete and were therefore not habitable. Respondent No. 9 signed the Commissioners report.

( 3 ) THE petitioner alleges that respondent Nos. 2 to 10 thereafter took possession of the flats in violation of the ad-interim injunction issued by the Board of Nominees completed the construction and occupied them Therefore the petitioner filed in this Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 105 of 1979 for taking action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 However it appears that that petition was withdrawn because the ad-interim injunction which the Board of Nominees had issued had yet to be confirmed after hearing both the parties. On 5/05/1979 both the parties were heard. Upon hearing both the parties the Board of Nominees vacated the ad-interim injunction.

( 4 ) THE petitioner challenged that order in Revision Application No. 24 of 1979 which he filed before the Gujarat Co-operative Tribunal. In that revision application no ad-interim injunction was given. However after hearing both the sides the Tribunal allowed the revision application and granted an interim injunction. The order of the Tribunal shows that the ad-interim injunction which the Board of Nominees had granted and which they had vacated was made absolute by the Tribunal. The petitioner alleges in this petition that during the period during which the ad-interim injunction issued by the Board of Nominees was in operation the respondents committed a wilful breach thereof within the meaning of sec. 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971

( 5 ) THE first question which has arisen before us is whether we have jurisdiction to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 in view of the provisions of sec. 20 of that Acts The ad-interim injunction issued by the Board of Nominees had been in force from 6-5-1978 to 95 On that day it was vacated. The present petition was filed on 20-11-1979 Notice was issued by this Court to respondents on 23 Therefore unless the respondents had committed wilful breach of the ad-interim injunction issued by the Board of Nominees say between 20-11-1978 and 5-5-1979 when the ad-interim injunction was vacated no action can be taken against them. The petitioner has not stated in this petition when the breach of the ad-interim injunction was committed. It is quite probable that the breach of the ad-interim injunction might have been committed say between 26-5-1978 and 20-11-1978. If it was so then sec. 20 would bar our jurisdiction to take action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 If wilful breach of the ad-interim injunction was committed by