Contempt jurisdiction declined where ability to comply was uncertain and wilful disobedience of tribunal directions was not established.

The note addresses whether contempt proceedings should be initiated for alleged wilful disobedience of earlier Tribunal directions requiring payment of fees and expenses. It records that no appearance was made for the alleged contemnors despite repeated listing, but the Tribunal found the material insufficient to establish that the contemnor had the financial capacity or present ability to comply. In view of that uncertainty, the Tribunal declined to proceed under contempt jurisdiction and disposed of the petition without initiation of contempt action.

---

---

Issues: Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated for alleged wilful disobedience of the Tribunal's earlier orders.

Analysis: The petition sought action under the contempt jurisdiction for non-compliance with earlier directions requiring payment of fees and expenses. No appearance was made for the alleged contemnors despite repeated listing. The Tribunal noted that, on the material before it, it was not known whether the contemnor was financially solvent or otherwise in a position to comply, and this uncertainty weighed against proceeding with contempt action.

Conclusion: Contempt proceedings were declined and the petition was disposed of without initiation of contempt.

---