Unmodified payment directions remain binding despite later liberty to seek relief, while contempt may be declined after compliance is made

An unmodified direction to pay Rs. 4.5 crores from sale proceeds remained binding until varied or set aside, and later liberty to approach the High Court did not suspend compliance with that operative order. The Court treated the deposit of the directed amount as sufficient to avoid punitive contempt action, while leaving the dispute over the sale and the exact entitlement of the petitioner to be determined by the High Court. The amount deposited was directed to be paid to the petitioner, subject to any adjustment or restitution depending on the High Court's final determination of the substantive dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged contemnors had wilfully disobeyed the unmodified directions requiring payment of Rs. 4.5 crores to the petitioner, and whether the contempt petitions could be closed after deposit of that amount while leaving the parties to work out their substantive entitlement before the High Court.

Analysis: The earlier orders had directed that, out of the amount realised from sale of the secured asset, Rs. 4.5 crores was to be paid to the petitioner and the balance retained by the other respondent, with any surplus to be deposited in Court. That direction had not been varied, modified or vacated. The later order permitting approach to the High Court did not dilute the obligation to comply with the earlier operative directions. At the same time, the dispute regarding the propriety of the sale and the exact amount due to the petitioner was left for determination by the High Court. Since the amount directed to be paid had ultimately been deposited, the Court found it unnecessary to take punitive contempt action.

Conclusion: The alleged contemnors were not proceeded against for contempt, but the deposited sum of Rs. 4.5 crores was directed to be paid to the petitioner, subject to adjustment on the High Court's determination of the actual amount due.

Final Conclusion: The contempt proceedings were brought to an end with enforcement of the payment direction, while preserving the High Court's power to decide the underlying dispute and order restitution if required.

Ratio Decidendi: An unmodified judicial direction must be obeyed until it is varied or set aside, and subsequent liberty to seek modification does not suspend compliance with the existing order; however, contempt relief may be declined where the directed payment has been made and the substantive dispute remains open for adjudication elsewhere.

---