Court undertakings and contempt: no breach was found where payment timing was only a scheduling statement.

An undertaking given to a court may, in appropriate cases, have the force of an order, and deliberate breach of a clear undertaking can found contempt. Here, the statement was not a categorical promise to pay by a fixed date; it only indicated that time was needed to work out a payment schedule. Contempt jurisdiction was therefore not attracted because the undertaking and any breach were not clear, and the circumstances did not show a deliberate or intentional violation. The respondent also gained no advantage from the statement, as the winding up proceedings could not have advanced further once the company's sickness was before the Board under the special statutory regime.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-company's failure to comply with the stated time expectation for payment amounted to contempt of court for breach of undertaking.

Analysis: An undertaking given to a court can, in appropriate cases, be treated as having the force of an order, and breach of a clear undertaking may amount to contempt. At the same time, contempt jurisdiction is not attracted unless the undertaking and its breach are clear, and the surrounding circumstances show a deliberate or intentional violation. The undertaking here was not a categorical promise to pay by a fixed date, but a statement that time was needed to work out a payment schedule. The respondent also did not obtain any advantage by making the statement, because the winding up proceedings could not have progressed further once the company's sickness was brought before the Board under the special statutory regime, which stayed further proceedings without consent.

Conclusion: The respondent was not guilty of contempt, as there was no deliberate or intentional breach of undertaking.

---