Ramachandran, J.

By this appeal, orders passed by a learned single Judge dated 18-11-2005 in Contempt of Court Case No.1177 of 2005 are subjected to challenge.

2. The appellants in the present proceedings are the defendants in a suit filed by the respondent herein, wherein it had been alleged that there were violation of trademark and intellectual property rights. The suit is pending before the District Court, Ernakulam. The appellants had contended that the suit was not maintainable for a variety of reasons. However, as desired orders were not obtained, a writ petition had been filed as W.P.(C).No.22776 of 2005 by the appellants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the above said proceedings, on 10-8-2005 an order had been passed, whereby status quo on the conduct of both the parties till the disposal of the writ petition had been ordered. It reads:-

“All actions and programmes held by the writ petitioners after obtaining the order from this Court through this writ petition, shall be reported to this Court for consideration at the time of hearing of the writ petition.”

3. While this order was in force, the respondent had filed Contempt of Court Case No.1177 of 2005 alleging that the appellants had violated the orders as above passed. It had been pointed out that certain events had been conducted by them in Australia and Egypt in violation of the subsisting orders.

4. Affidavits were filed in the Contempt of Court Case by the appellants contending that there was no violation of the orders passed. On 31-10-2005, however, the court had stayed Annexure-A10 programmes advertised by the appellants at Mumbai and Bahamas. A review had been sought for inter alia seeking for vacating the stay orders, but after hearing the parties, an order modifying the earlier order had been passed, which could be extracted herein below:

“Partly heard. The respondents shall file a detailed statement containing the activities that had been held, in Egypt, between 18-09-2005 and 25-09-2005, as evidenced by Ext.A3.

2. The respondents shall also file a statement as to whether they have conducted any programme between 13.8.2005 to 15.8.2005.

3. This contempt petition shall be heard after the above statements are filed.

4. The order dated 31.10.2005, staying Annexure A.10 programme, is modified and the respondents are allowed to conduct the said programme at Bimini Islands, Bahamas between 18.11.2005 and 23.11.2005, subject to the following conditions:-

(1)The respondents shall not use the website www.kamadonacademy.com or www.kamadonway.com, or any information or systems therein connected or attached with the Kamadon Academy, as per the Kamadon Way of Practice, Preachings and the literatures therein.

(2) The respondents shall maintain complete records of the activities, including the income and expenditure of AK Module 11B, and file a detailed report/statement along with the VCD, covering the entire programme of AK Module 11B.

(3) The respondents shall not, overtly or covertly, use any material, information or intellectual properties, that attached and belonging to Kamadon Academy.

The above directions shall be fully complied with and the report/statement shall be filed within three weeks from the date of completion of the AK Module 11B programme.”

Against the orders as above, the appeal has been filed.

5. We had occasion to hear Mr. V. Giri on behalf of the appellants as also Sri. Sudakaran, counsel for the respondent. Mr. Giri contends that the orders, extracted above, as well as the earlier orders dated 31-10-2005 staying the conduct of programmes in the contempt proceedings are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, as available under the statute. He invites our attention to Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Contempt of Court Act and points out that every proceedings for contempt requires to be dealt with by a Bench of not less than two Judges. Of course reference is made to the proviso to the Rules, introduced by Notification dated 21-1