Civil contempt for breach of undertaking depends on wilful violation, especially where settlement terms provide an alternate remedy.

Settlement terms must be read as a whole: where Clause 8 required repayment of the balance if movables were not sold within time, Clause 9 separately preserved the bank's possession and attachment of the flat and allowed a fresh sale through due process of law. The note explains that a breach of undertaking amounts to civil contempt only where the violation is wilful and contumacious. If the settlement itself provides an alternate remedy for non-payment, default may not justify contempt treatment on the stated facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was guilty of civil contempt for allegedly breaching the undertaking recorded in the consent minutes of order, having regard to the consequence expressly provided in the same settlement terms.

Analysis: The settlement terms had to be read as a whole. The undertaking in Clause 8 required repayment of the balance outstanding amount if the movables were not sold within the stipulated period, but Clause 9 separately provided the consequence of default by preserving possession and attachment of the flat with the bank and permitting a fresh sale of the flat by due process of law. The Court held that the default did not amount to a wilful and contumacious defiance of the Court's authority in the facts of the case, particularly because the settlement itself contemplated an alternate remedy for non-payment. The Court also considered the requirement that contempt for breach of undertaking must be founded on wilful and intentional violation.

Conclusion: The respondent was not guilty of civil contempt and the contempt petition was dismissed.

---