Contempt jurisdiction demands clear proof of wilful disobedience; uncertain allegations and personal grievances cannot sustain proceedings.

Contempt jurisdiction requires clear proof of wilful disobedience of a definite direction, and it cannot be used on uncertain allegations or as a means of settling personal grievances. In the oppression and mismanagement dispute, the earlier order had given the petitioner a choice to take over the company with its machinery or pursue winding-up, but the material did not show that acceptance of the takeover option was effectively communicated within time. The respondents had also made payments toward the company's liabilities, and the petitioner's delayed contempt move after knowledge of settlement with the bank weakened the claim. No wilful disobedience was established, so contempt proceedings were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were liable to be proceeded against for contempt for wilful disobedience of the order dated 21.12.2006 passed in the oppression and mismanagement proceedings.

Analysis: The contempt application was confined to the question whether there was wilful disobedience of the earlier directions. The earlier order had given the petitioner a choice either to take over the company with its machinery or to pursue winding-up. On the material placed, there was no proof that the petitioner had effectively communicated acceptance of the takeover option within the relevant time. The respondents had meanwhile made payments to discharge the company's liabilities, including post-order payments, and had asserted reimbursement on the footing that the payments were made from their personal funds. The Court found that contempt jurisdiction could not be expanded into a tool for punishment on mere allegations, and that the petitioner's conduct, including the timing of the contempt application after knowledge of the settlement with the bank, undermined the bona fides of the request.

Conclusion: No wilful disobedience was established and the contempt proceedings were not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed as the impugned order declining contempt action disclosed no infirmity and the petitioner was not entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Contempt jurisdiction requires clear proof of wilful disobedience of a definite direction, and it cannot be invoked on uncertain allegations or as a means of settling personal grievances.

---