Contempt requires a clear court undertaking; breach of a settlement alone is usually enforced through execution proceedings.

A recorded settlement or compromise does not, by itself, create contempt liability unless the court order contains a clear undertaking that is wilfully breached and the conduct substantially interferes with the due course of justice. Where the dispute concerns enforcement of settlement terms, the proper course is execution proceedings rather than contempt. The discussion also notes that acceptance of delayed payments with interest, after an initial instalment default, did not justify revival of the winding-up petition on the facts described.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were guilty of wilful disobedience of the court's orders and liable to be proceeded against for contempt for allegedly withholding the Trina Solar receipts and not withdrawing the arbitral proceedings after the settlement amounts were paid.

Analysis: The settlement between the parties was recorded by the court, but no undertaking by the respondents to release the receipts or withdraw arbitration was incorporated in the court's orders. The court had earlier held that the petitioner's default in instalment payments, followed by acceptance of delayed payments with interest, did not justify revival of the winding up petition. In contempt, the governing principle is that breach of a compromise or consent arrangement, without a clear undertaking to the court and without conduct that substantially interferes with the due course of justice, does not by itself warrant contempt jurisdiction. The proper remedy for enforcement of an executable settlement order lies in execution proceedings rather than contempt.

Conclusion: The respondents were not found guilty of wilful disobedience or contempt.

---