ORDER

A. K. PATNAIK, J. : The relevant facts briefly are that the respondents filed Company Petition No.62 of 2003 before the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi under Sections 397, 398, 403 and 404 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging mismanage¬ment and oppression of the minority share holders by the majority share holder, appellant No.1, in the affairs of the company Utkal Motors Private Limited, appellant No.5. In the said Company Petition No.62 of 2003 the respondents also prayed for some interim reliefs in paragraph 51 of the petition. On 2.7.2003, the Company Law Board passed an order ex parte order granting interim reliefs as prayed in paragraph-51 (i), (ii) and (iv) and (v) of the Company Petition. The appellants herein filed their reply before the Company Law Board on 31.7.2003 and made a prayer before the Company Law Board to recall/vacate the ad interim ex parte order dated 2.7.2003. Thereafter, the Company Law Board passed orders on 11.9.2003 and 1.10.2003. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Company Law Board on 11.9.2003 and 1.10.2003, the appellants filed COAPL No.2 of 2003 under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956. Along with the said appeal, the appellants also filed Misc. Case No.3 of 2003 praying for stay of the impugned orders dated 11.9.2003 and 1.10.2003 passed by the Company Law Board till disposal of the appeal. On 3.11.2003, the Court after holding that question of law arises for determination in this case admitted the appeal and directed as an interim meas¬ure that the operation of the impugned orders dated 11.9.2003 and 1.10.2003 of the Company Law Board shall remain stayed until further orders. Thereafter, Misc. Case No.5 of 2003 was filed by the appellants herein with a prayer to the Court to pass an appropriate order staying the ad interim order of stay dated 2.7.2003 of the Company Law Board. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court passed orders on 14.5.2004 in the said Misc. Case No.5 of 2003. Against the said orders passed by this Court on 14.5.2004 in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2003, the respondents filed Special Leave Petition No.10533 of 2004 before the Supreme Court but on 28.5.2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. Thereafter the present Misc. Case Nos.8 and 10 of 2004 have been filed by the respondents in COAPL No.2 of 2003.

2. In Misc. Case No.8 of 2004, the respondents have prayed for modification of the aforesaid order dated 14.5.2004 so as to restore the interim orders passed by the Company Law Board in terms of paragraphs (ii) and (v) of the Company Petition No.62 of 2003 of the respondents before the Company Law Board.

3. Mr. Bijayananda Mohanty, learned counsel for the appel¬lants submitted that since the respondents had challenged the order dated 14.5.2004 before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.10533 of 2004 and the Supreme Court has dismissed the said Special Leave Petition on 28.4.2004, any modification of the said order dated 14.5.2004 after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court would constitute an affornt to the Supreme Court and, therefore, this Court should not enter¬tain the Misc.Case petition No.8 of 2004 for modification of the order dated 14.5.2004 of this Court. In support of this submis¬sion, he cited the observations of the Supreme Court in Abbai Moligai Partnership Firm and another v. K. Santhakumaran and others, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1486.

4. Mr. S. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and another v. K. Santha¬kumaran and others (supra) cited by Mr. Mohanty is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He sought to explain that in that case, the Supreme Court held that the exercise of power of review by the High Court after dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions against the self same order is improper. He pointed out that in that case an order of evict