Contempt requires strict proof of wilful breach of an explicit order; mere development activity was insufficient here.

Contempt requires strict proof of wilful disobedience of an explicit and definite order. On the shareholding issue, no material showed any change in shareholding despite the status quo direction, so no contempt was established. On the project property issue, the status quo order did not prohibit all construction activity, and the applicant failed to prove transfer of ownership or any wilful breach through continuation of development work or engagement of a development agency. The tribunal therefore found no contempt on either allegation and held that mere continuation of development activity, without breach of a specific restraint, is insufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents committed contempt by altering the shareholding in breach of the order directing status quo in relation to shareholding. (ii) Whether the respondents committed contempt by continuing construction activity or engaging a development agency in breach of the order directing status quo in relation to the project property.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents committed contempt by altering the shareholding in breach of the order directing status quo in relation to shareholding.

Analysis: The order of 15.09.2017 required status quo to be maintained in relation to shareholding. No material was placed to show that the respondents had effected any change in the shareholding position. In contempt jurisdiction, disobedience must be proved strictly and only the explicit command of the order can be enforced.

Conclusion: No contempt was made out in relation to the shareholding order.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents committed contempt by continuing construction activity or engaging a development agency in breach of the order directing status quo in relation to the project property.

Analysis: The order of 15.01.2019 required status quo to be maintained in relation to the property, but it did not prohibit all construction activity. The respondents asserted that no ownership rights were created in favour of any third party and that a development agency was engaged to continue the project. The applicant failed to establish by cogent evidence that the legal ownership of the project property had been transferred or that the conduct amounted to wilful breach of the order.

Conclusion: No contempt was made out in relation to the project property order.

Final Conclusion: The contempt petition failed because the alleged acts did not establish wilful disobedience of the tribunal's orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Contempt cannot be sustained unless the alleged contemnor has wilfully violated an explicit and definite direction contained in the order, and mere continuation of development activity without proof of transfer of ownership or breach of a specific restraint does not constitute contempt.

---