ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, the judgment under appeal refusing to entertain the contempt petition cannot be sustained on the basis that the earlier judgment of the Division, Bench which had become final inter-parties was a nullity. It is now well settled that even if the Court is found to have lacked jurisdiction, the interim orders passed have to be complied with and when there is any breach of the interim order, appropriate steeps could be taken against the party which has committed breach of the said interim order. As held in the decision of this court in the case of Fathai M. Bigasawallla & anr. v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt., Ltd. & ors. Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Reported in (1997) 8 SCC 443. In the present case, it was even a final order for the breach of which the contempt proceeding was initiated. Even that apart, in view of the latest decision of this Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 the high Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be said to be lacking jurisdiction in such matters. For all these reasons, therefore, it cannot be said that the earlier order of the Division Bench was a nullity. Only on the short ground, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The contempt proceeding being contempt petition No. 118 of 1995 is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to the High Court to consider the same on merits. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between parties.