Criminal contempt and wilful disobedience found where parties re-litigated settled issues and created third-party rights despite restraint orders.

Filing a fresh suit to re-agitate finally decided matters, together with conduct aimed at undermining final orders, was treated as an abuse of process and criminal contempt; the tendered apology did not purge the misconduct. Creating third-party interests and entering bookings and agreements after a clear restraint order was held to be wilful disobedience and contempt. The Court imposed custodial sentences and fines, and also ordered attachment of properties and bank accounts, while deferring imprisonment subject to specified conditions involving security and payment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contemners committed criminal contempt by filing a fresh suit and pursuing conduct calculated to undermine final orders and the administration of justice; (ii) Whether the contemners wilfully disobeyed the Court's order dated 29.1.1991 by inducting third parties and creating rights in their favour; (iii) What punishment and ancillary directions were warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the contemners committed criminal contempt by filing a fresh suit and pursuing conduct calculated to undermine final orders and the administration of justice.

Analysis: After the dismissal of the earlier proceedings, the contemners instituted a fresh suit seeking substantially the same reliefs and adopted a course of conduct that the Court found to be an abuse of process. The filing of proceedings to re-agitate concluded matters, together with the surrounding conduct, was held to interfere with and obstruct the due course of judicial proceedings and the orderly administration of justice. The tendered apology was treated as insufficient to erase the contempt.

Conclusion: The contemners were held guilty of criminal contempt.

Issue (ii): Whether the contemners wilfully disobeyed the Court's order dated 29.1.1991 by inducting third parties and creating rights in their favour.

Analysis: The order expressly prohibited the inducement of any person in the building or the creation of any right in favour of any third party. The contemners nevertheless advertised for bookings, entered into agreements after the order, and created commitments in favour of purchasers. The Court held that this conduct could not be reconciled with the clear terms of the restraint order and amounted to deliberate disobedience.

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

Issue (iii): What punishment and ancillary directions were warranted.

Analysis: The Court differentiated between the roles of the two contemners while noting the gravity of the contempt. It imposed custodial sentences and fines, directed attachment of properties and bank accounts, and then deferred imprisonment on specified conditions involving security and payment.

Conclusion: Simple imprisonment and fines were imposed, with sentence deferred subject to compliance with the stated conditions.

Final Conclusion: The contempt petition was allowed in substance, the contemners were found guilty of contempt, and punitive as well as protective orders were made to secure compliance and preserve the authority of the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A deliberate attempt to re-agitate finally decided matters or to create third-party interests in direct defiance of a clear restraint order constitutes contempt, and an apology does not purge guilt where the conduct shows wilful obstruction of the administration of justice.

---