Wilful disobedience of compromise directions led to contempt liability and coercive consequences for non-compliance.

A Tribunal examined whether parties had wilfully disobeyed a recorded compromise and later directions requiring discharge of the company's liability and protection of the petitioners' personal property. The record reflected repeated non-compliance, including failure to act on directions to pay ARCIL, and the respondents' reliance on alleged breaches by the petitioners did not excuse disobedience of subsisting orders. On the facts recorded, the conduct was treated as deliberate and wilful, resulting in contempt liability and directions for payment with interest, failing which imprisonment and fines were stipulated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the Tribunal's compromise order and subsequent directions so as to attract contempt jurisdiction and warrant payment of compensation with penal consequences.

Analysis: The compromise recorded before the Tribunal required the respondents to take steps to discharge the company's liability and protect the petitioners' personal property. The record showed repeated non-compliance with the compromise and with later directions requiring payment to ARCIL, despite opportunities granted by the Tribunal. The respondents' plea that the petitioners also failed to meet certain obligations under the compromise did not justify disregard of the Tribunal's orders, since the respondents remained bound to comply with the directions already issued. On the facts recorded, the disobedience was found to be deliberate and wilful.

Conclusion: The respondents were held liable for contempt and were directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 5.5 crore with interest at 18% per annum within 30 days, failing which they would undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 each.

---