Having heard all the companynsel for both the parties in extenso and perusing relevant material on record, ultimately we companyclude that this is number a case fit for companyvicting respondent No.5, 6 and 7 for violation of the status quo order made by the High Court on May 30, 1994.
Though 6th respondent was served with the numberice directing him to be present, he was number present.
of land was given by respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the East West Development Company.Leave granted.
No case of companytempt arises against respondents Nos.1 to 4.
