Judgment ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THIS petition is moved by one eknath Jadhav claiming to be a Managing director of Kisan Vikas Ginning and Pressing limited, a public limited company alleging contempt of Court. Contempt was alleged to have committed by respondents. According to the petitioner, Kisan Vikas Ginning and pressing Society which was co-operative society passed resolution dated 13-7-98 to convert the said society into a public limited company and on the basis of said resolution of the society, he has obtained certificate of incorporation from Registrar of Companies on 9-4-1999. According to the petitioner, the status of the society came to an end and it has become a public limited company. Inspite of these facts, respondent no. 2 exercising powers u/s 77-A of Maharashtra Co-operative societies Act (hereinafter referred to as societies Act for short), had appointed administrator by his order dated 4-7-2000. The said order was challenged by preferring Writ petition No. 3i43/2000. That Writ Petition was allowed and the order of appointment of administrator was quashed and directions were also given to take steps u/s. 102 of Societies act to liquidate the society. That order was challenged by respondent no. 1 by preferring letters Patent Appeal No. 169/02. The said l. P. A. was dismissed. However, while disposing the said L. P. A. the Division Bench clarified that respondent no. l society shall continue to be a company until certificate of registration is cancelled. The certificate of registration is not yet cancelled. Inspite of these facts, respondent no. 2 was allowing the erstwhile co-operative society to work as a ginning and Pressing society at Shiur by the same name and that act was alleged to be a contemptuous act. So this petition was moved for taking action of contempt. ( 3 ) ON notice issued by this Court, the office bearers respondents 7, 8 and 10 appeared. They have filed affidavits in reply. These office bearers came with the contention that the present petitioner made misrepresentation in the Court alleging the conversion of society into a company but the society has not passed any such resolution. In writ Petition No. 4429/00, on the direction from this Court, Registrar of Co-operative societies, conducted enquiry and submitted report that no such resolution is passed by the society and no general body meeting was held as alleged by the petitioner. In writ Petition No. 4429/00, on the direction from this Court, Registrar of Co-operative societies, conducted enquiry and submitted report that no such resolution is passed by the society and no general body meeting was held as alleged by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner entered into compromise and agreed for restoration of the status of society. Thereafter, the office bearers of the society, moved the Registrar of company for cancellation of certificate and the Registrar of the Companies intimated that the company's incorporation is not by way of conversion of society but it is independent company. So status of the society did not come to an end. As such there was no contempt as alleged by the petitioner. There is no order from the court prohibiting the society to carry on business as a society. ( 4 ) THE learned advocate Shri. A. G. Godhamgaonkar appearing on behalf of petitioner made submission that the Division bench of this Court while deciding Letters patent Appeal No. 169/2000 held that respondent no. 1 shall continue to be a company until certificate of registration is cancelled. It has also been observed that by consent of the parties or by passing a purshis there cannot be cancellation of a company. So this order certifies the status of petitioner company. Inspite of this position, respondents claiming to be office bearers of the society intend to carry out business in the name of society and that act is alleged to be a contemptuous act. On the other hand, learned advocate shri. Bajaj appearing on behalf of the office bearers of the society made submission that even as per first order passed in W. P. No. 3143/00, the Registrar did not take action to wind up the society as directed by the Court. So society's status is existing today also. He also pointed out that present petitioner himself is party to a purshis filed in W. P. No. 4429/00 wherein he has admitted the existence of society. So under these circumstances, the office bearers of the society cannot be said to have committed a contempt. He also further submitted that present petitioner himself is making misrepresentations and application has already been moved for taking action u/s 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that proceeding is pending in the Court. So under these circumstances, the office bearers of the society cannot be said to have committed a contempt. He also further submitted that present petitioner himself is making misrepresentations and application has already been moved for taking action u/s 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that proceeding is pending in the Court. ( 5 ) THE real dispute between the parties is about existence of society and one group of members of society intends to carry on business treating the conversion of original society to be a public limited company and the respondents denying that conversion claim existence of original society itself. The first petition was moved by present petitioner himself claiming to be the Managing Director of public limited challenging the action of appointment of administrator for the society. The society was not a party to that writ petition. He raised contention that the in the general body meeting held on 13-7-98 members of the society passed resolution to convert the society into a public limited company and on the basis of said resolution, they approached the registrar of Companies and obtained certificate of incorporation of company. According to him, status of society came to an end. So there was no question to appoint administrator for the said society. Admittedly the society was not party to that writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed and the order of appointment of administrator was quashed. Considering the provisions under the co-operative societies Act, while disposing that writ petition, the Court gave direction to assistant Registrar to take appropriate action u/s 102 of Societies Act to liquidate the society treating letter dated 17-4-99 as application for winding up of the society. Admittedly no such action u/s 102 of Societies Act is yet taken and no order to liquidate or to wind up the original society is passed. So in the legal sense, the society's status has not come to an end till this date. Second Writ Petition was filed by some of the members of the society bearing W. P. No. 4429/00. Present petitioner was also a party to the second Writ Petition. In the said writ Petition there were allegations that present petitioner prepared false record about the alleged meeting dated 13-7-98 and passing of any resolution in the said meeting. Second Writ Petition was filed by some of the members of the society bearing W. P. No. 4429/00. Present petitioner was also a party to the second Writ Petition. In the said writ Petition there were allegations that present petitioner prepared false record about the alleged meeting dated 13-7-98 and passing of any resolution in the said meeting. This court by order dated 19-10-00 directed the registrar of the co-operative societies to conduct enquiry and submit a report. As per directions Registrar submitted a report in Court wherein he opined that no such resolution to convert the society into a company was passed. He also reported that no general body meeting was held on 13-7-1998 and he was of the opinion that present petitioner Eknath Jadhav has manipulated the forged record. After the said report was submitted in the Court, parties filed purshi. s settlement. Present petitioner was also a party to the purshis and he agreed to settlement that original status of society is to be maintained as a co-operative society and the affairs of the co-operative society shall be conducted under the provisions of Societies act. By that purshis he admits the existence of society though certificate of incorporation of company is obtained by him from the registrar of Companies. The first order passed in W. P. No. 3143/00 was challenged by preferring the L. P. A. That L. P. A. was dismissed and the judgment of Single Judge is confirmed. When the subsequent development of filing of second Writ Petition and the compromise purshis filed in the proceeding was brought to the notice of the division Bench the Division Bench while disposing the L. P. A. observed that the certificate of incorporation granted under the companies Act cannot be nullified by a compromise or consent terms but the course open to the parties is to approach the Registrar of companies and till the said certificate of registration is not cancelled, the status of company will be continued. Taking advantage of these observations, the present petition has been filed alleging a contempt. While disposing of L. P. A. the order passed in W. P. No. 3143/00 is confirmed. In that order itself the Court gave direction to take steps for liquidation or winding up of the society as per provisions of Section 102 of Societies Act. Admittedly that order is not passed yet. While disposing of L. P. A. the order passed in W. P. No. 3143/00 is confirmed. In that order itself the Court gave direction to take steps for liquidation or winding up of the society as per provisions of Section 102 of Societies Act. Admittedly that order is not passed yet. So the status of society has not came to an end till today as no order is passed as directed in w. P. No. 3143/00. So the act of respondent claiming to be office bearers of society cannot be said to be contemptuous act because that society's existence has not legally come to end and this position is admitted by present petitioner by filing purshis in second Writ petition. So under these circumstances, there is no question of taking any action of contempt when admittedly no prohibiting order is passed by Court in any proceeding directing the society not to carry on any business in the name of society. ( 6 ) CONTEMPT Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.