Wilful disobedience in contempt proceedings requires deliberate non-compliance, and absence of intent defeats contempt.

Wilful contempt requires proof of deliberate disobedience of earlier court directions; where respondents acted on legal advice, counsel accepted responsibility, and the record showed no intentional non-compliance, contempt was not established. The Court treated the conduct as lacking the requisite contumacious intent and granted time to complete implementation of the earlier directions in full spirit, with the contempt petitions dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the Court's earlier directions so as to warrant contempt action.

Analysis: The respondents explained that they had acted on legal advice while implementing the earlier judgment and that, on the facts placed before the Court, there was no deliberate defiance. The acceptance of responsibility by counsel and the absence of a finding of intentional non-compliance led the Court to treat the conduct as not amounting to wilful disobedience. Time was granted to complete the exercise and give effect to the earlier directions in full spirit.

Conclusion: Wilful or deliberate disobedience was not made out, and the contempt petitions were dismissed.

---