Contempt requires wilful disobedience or obstruction; refusal to pay in cash was excused where the order did not specify the mode.

A bank manager was not held in civil contempt because the order directing release of funds did not specify the mode of payment, and his refusal to pay in cash was based on perceived statutory restrictions and an RBI circular rather than wilful disobedience. Criminal contempt was also not established, as the facts did not show any act scandalising the court, lowering its authority, or obstructing the administration of justice. The unqualified apology was accepted, and the respondent was discharged from the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bank manager committed civil or criminal contempt by refusing to release the amount in cash when the court's order did not specify the mode of payment, and whether the apology tendered warranted discharge.

Analysis: The order directing release of the amount did not prescribe the manner in which payment was to be made. The respondent relied on the statutory restrictions perceived under Section 269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and on the Reserve Bank of India circular, and acted on the view that payment could not be made in cash. In the absence of a specific direction requiring cash payment, the conduct was not treated as wilful disobedience within the meaning of civil contempt. For criminal contempt also, the facts did not show any act scandalising the court, lowering its authority, or obstructing the administration of justice. The apology was unqualified and was accepted.

Conclusion: No contempt was made out against the respondent, and the respondent was discharged from the proceedings.

---