JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has arisen out of the S.B. Contempt Petition No. 469/2000, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge as not pressed by the appellant on 3.5.2000. 2. The grievance of the appellant, who was respondent in the contempt petition, is not against dismissal of petition as not pressed, but he is aggrieved with the order because the interim order passed during the pendency of contempt petition has been ordered to be continued. 3. We are of the opinion that contempt proceedings primarily are initiated either where the order of the court is wilfully disobeyed by the party to whom such orders are directed or there is an abuse of process of court or by other conduct, there is interference with the administration of justice or their is denigration of authority of courts. 4. However, ordinarily no interim order are contemplated to be passed in contempt jurisdiction which can be resorted to in the substantive proceedings. In the present case Company Petition No. 6/2000 winding up M/s. Takshila Hospital Ltd. was the substantive proceedings. The Company Petition No. 6/2000 was not admitted but was kept pending until the opportunity given to the appellant for taking appropriate action before the Company Law Board under section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act for purpose of issuing directions for management of the company and In pursuance of that order, appellant has moved appropriate application before the Company Law Board and the proceedings became pending, before Company Law Board also. 5. However, no Interim order, as was passed by learned single judge in contempt proceedings, has been made even in company petition. 6. Two special appeals No. 68/01 and 69/01, were filed aggrieved with that order by which the learned Company Judge has given option to the petitioner to approach Company Law Board and also specifically ordered not to admit the winding up petition, but kept pending. In many such orders the learned Company Judge has given certain findings. The said special appeals were decided on 4.12.2001. 7. The appeals were allowed with the following observations;As a result, these appeal are allowed. As the petitioner has in pursuance of option given by the learned Company Judge preferred Applications under section 397 of the Act, as a remedy more appropriate to proceed In first instance, the winding up petition is dismissed subject to observations made above. 7. The appeals were allowed with the following observations;As a result, these appeal are allowed. As the petitioner has in pursuance of option given by the learned Company Judge preferred Applications under section 397 of the Act, as a remedy more appropriate to proceed In first instance, the winding up petition is dismissed subject to observations made above. The Company Law Board shall decide the application filed before it uninfluenced by any finding recorded by the learned Company Judge. 7. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that where no interim order passed by the Company Judge in the winding petition can survive. 8. So far as proceedings in contempt proceedings are concerned, ordinarily no interim order could have been passed. Such an order ordinarily could have been prayed for and granted in substantive parent proceedings only. Even of such orders have been made, there was no justification for continuing the same beyond the proceedings of contempt. Moreover, once contempt proceedings were not pressed by the complainant after calling for the report from Commissioner about site inspection, the continuance of Interim order in a proceedings, which were about alleged wilful disobedience of Court's directions, could not result In a fresh injunction, which was not existing, nor any finding about any breach of orders by the non-applicant was recorded. In these circumstances to saddle the non- applicants with new obligations by a new injunction order was not justified. 9. This is so also because meanwhile the petitioner in company petition has approached the Company Law Board by exercising his option, where the parties could approach for any interim direction. We are informed in this regard that in fact on an application made in this regard some interim orders have been passed by the Company Law Board. 10. In view of aforesaid, the injunction order passed by the learned Single Judge and its continuance beyond proceedings which were disposed of as not pressed cannot survive and the same are vacated. 11. With aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.Special Appeal Disposed of as per above observation. *******