Wilful disobedience of an interim restraint order can sustain civil contempt even where compliance is argued on a narrow reading.

Wilful disobedience of an interim restraint order can constitute civil contempt where a person bound by the order continues to act beyond the permitted limits before the order is vacated. The court rejected the defence of bona fide belief that the order had become infructuous, as no prior steps were taken to have it withdrawn or vacated and the point was not raised in the show-cause reply. It also rejected the argument that only approval was given rather than sanction, holding that compliance with a court order must be judged by its substance as well as its wording. The contempt finding was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding of civil contempt for wilful disobedience of the interim order was justified.

Analysis: The appellant had been restrained by the interim order from sanctioning or passing orders in financial matters exceeding Rs. 1,000. The order remained operative until it was vacated, and during that period he signed or counter-signed cheques far beyond the permitted limit. The plea that he acted under a bona fide impression that the order had become infructuous was rejected, since no steps were taken to have the order withdrawn or vacated before the conduct complained of, and the plea was not contemporaneously raised in the reply to the show-cause notice. The contention that he merely approved sanction orders and did not himself sanction the amounts was also rejected, as compliance with a court order must be judged by its spirit as well as its letter.

Conclusion: The finding of wilful and deliberate disobedience was upheld and the contempt conviction was sustained.

---