Contempt and wilful disobedience were not made out where a bank acted cautiously amid conflicting attachment orders.

Contempt was not established against the respondent bank because its refusal to permit operation of the account was driven by existing freezing and provisional attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, together with a lien by the Income Tax Department. The court treated the bank's request for clarification and its cautious approach as consistent with compliance, not wilful disobedience, particularly where directions had been issued regarding transfer of attached funds and a further provisional attachment order had also been passed. No deliberate disregard of the earlier order was proved, and the petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent bank was guilty of wilful disobedience in not permitting operation of the bank account and whether contempt proceedings were warranted.

Analysis: The bank had sought clarification because the account was already subject to freezing and provisional attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the account was also under a lien by the Income Tax Department. The bank's conduct was found to be cautious rather than contumacious, especially since the authorities had issued directions concerning transfer of the attached funds and a further provisional attachment order had been passed. In these circumstances, no wilful default or deliberate disregard of the earlier order was established.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the petitioner. No contempt was made out against the respondent bank.

---