Wilful disobedience of clear court orders and a belated apology were held to constitute contempt, with an unfounded attack on court integrity also penalised.

Wilful disobedience of clear court orders to pay salary and permit unhindered performance of duties was found to constitute contempt, because the respondents understood the orders yet chose not to comply and an appeal without a stay did not suspend obedience. The apology tendered after prolonged resistance and after the proceedings had advanced was rejected as lacking genuine remorse and appearing aimed at avoiding punishment. An unsupported allegation that the court's order had been wrongly transcribed by the stenographer was also held to lower the dignity and authority of the court and itself amounted to contempt.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondents committed contempt by wilfully disobeying the Court's orders directing payment of salary and permitting non-obstruction of the applicant's duties; (ii) whether the apology tendered after prolonged non-compliance and after the proceedings had materially advanced was a genuine act of contrition deserving acceptance; and (iii) whether the imputation that the Court's order had been wrongly transcribed by the stenographer amounted to contempt.

Issue (i): whether the respondents committed contempt by wilfully disobeying the Court's orders directing payment of salary and permitting non-obstruction of the applicant's duties.

Analysis: The orders directing payment of salary were held to be clear and unambiguous. The record, including the contemporaneous advice of counsel and the District Government Counsel, showed that the respondents understood the effect of the orders but still chose not to comply. Their conduct in treating the applicant as entitled only to subsistence allowance, despite repeated directions to pay full salary, was found deliberate and not the result of any genuine misunderstanding. Filing an appeal without any stay order from the Supreme Court did not suspend the obligation to obey the subsisting orders of the Court.

Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of wilful disobedience and contempt.

Issue (ii): whether the apology tendered after prolonged non-compliance and after the proceedings had materially advanced was a genuine act of contrition deserving acceptance.

Analysis: The apology was examined in the light of the respondents' persistent defiance, their continued resistance even after notice, and their attempts to justify non-compliance by inconsistent explanations. The apology was tendered only when the likelihood of punishment became apparent, and not at the earliest opportunity or in true penitence. In those circumstances, it was treated as a device to escape consequences rather than as genuine remorse.

Conclusion: The apology was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the imputation that the Court's order had been wrongly transcribed by the stenographer amounted to contempt.

Analysis: The allegation was unsupported by any reliable record and was inconsistent with the contemporaneous correspondence and advice on the Bank's file. The respondents had no factual basis to accuse an officer of the Court of wrongly recording the order, and the allegation tended to lower the dignity and authority of the Court.

Conclusion: The allegation itself was held to constitute contempt.

Final Conclusion: The contemners were found guilty of contempt for deliberate non-compliance with the Court's orders and for making unfounded allegations against a Court officer, and punishment was imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated apology does not absolve contempt when persistent and deliberate disobedience continues until punishment becomes imminent, and an unsupported allegation casting doubt on the integrity of a Court officer can itself amount to contempt.

---