It has been set out in the petition that even though the petitioner's company was declared a sick unit and the BIFR had directed that the unit, which was earlier taken over by the PSIDC, be restored to the company, the respondents had not bothered to comply with the directions.

It was urged that the BIFR order was a judicial order and the BIFR was a court established under a statute for the purposes of the Contempt of Courts Act, and as such, willful disobedience of the orders passed on April 16 would amount to contempt punishable under the supra Act.

After the company was declared sick, the respondents were given a show cause notice as to why possession of the unit should not be restored to the company to smoothen the rehabilitation process. The PSIDC had objected and had indicated that it intended to sell the assets of the company. The BIFR had then restrained the PSIDC from adopting any coercive steps and ordered that the unit be restored by April 30, but this order was intentionally not followed.