Wilful civil contempt for breaching clear property restraint orders led to rejection of apology and imprisonment.

Wilful disobedience of clear interim restraint orders, including transfers, receipt of consideration and creation of third-party interests in suit property, was held to constitute civil contempt. The Court found that the operative orders barred creation of any interest and later required notice before third-party rights could be created, yet the respondents acted during the restraint period and gave notice only after rights had already arisen. Their explanation was rejected as inconsistent with the record, and the orders were treated as unambiguous. The apology was not accepted because it lacked genuine contrition and was tendered after deliberate breach had been established. Simple imprisonment was imposed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the Court's interim orders by entering into transfers, accepting consideration, and creating third-party interests in the suit property; (ii) Whether the apology tendered by the respondents should be accepted and punishment under the contempt jurisdiction declined.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the Court's interim orders by entering into transfers, accepting consideration, and creating third-party interests in the suit property.

Analysis: Civil contempt requires a subsisting judicial order, disobedience of that order, and wilfulness. The first order prohibited creation of any interest in the suit property, while the later order required third-party rights, if created, to be done only after notice to the petitioners. The record showed agreements, receipt of consideration, and transfers during the operative period of restraint, and in some cases notice was given only after the rights had already been created. The explanation based on different portions of the property and the claim of clear title was found inconsistent and unsupported by record. The orders were held to be clear and capable of only one meaning.

Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of wilful civil contempt.

Issue (ii): Whether the apology tendered by the respondents should be accepted and punishment under the contempt jurisdiction declined.

Analysis: Apology in contempt proceedings must reflect genuine contrition and be tendered in good faith. The apology here was treated as a defensive move made after the proceedings had advanced and after deliberate violation had been found. In view of the seriousness of the disobedience, a fine was considered inadequate to meet the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The apology was not accepted and imprisonment was imposed.

Final Conclusion: The contempt petitions succeeded, the respondents were found guilty of deliberate breach of the Court's orders, and they were sentenced to simple imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi: Wilful disobedience of a clear and unambiguous court order, including creation of third-party interests in breach of a restraint and non-compliance with a notice condition, constitutes civil contempt and may be punished by imprisonment when a mere apology is not bona fide or adequate.

---