Civil contempt sustained for wilful noncompliance with a specific court direction despite an executable underlying order.

Contempt jurisdiction was held maintainable despite the availability of execution proceedings because the proceeding rested not only on the underlying Section 9 order but also on a later specific judicial direction to deposit the shortfall. Repeated noncompliance after clear directions, rejection of the exemption plea, and continued withholding of the shortfall were treated as deliberate and wilful disobedience. The Court therefore found civil contempt for breach of the orders requiring maintenance of funds and deposit of the shortfall, while deferring punishment and granting a further opportunity to comply before the next hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contempt petition was maintainable despite the availability of execution proceedings for the underlying Section 9 order; (ii) whether the respondents' failure to deposit the shortfall amount amounted to wilful and deliberate disobedience warranting a finding of contempt.

Issue (i): Whether the contempt petition was maintainable despite the availability of execution proceedings for the underlying Section 9 order.

Analysis: The order of 19.08.2020 restored the Section 9 direction requiring maintenance of USD 60 million in the bank account, and a further specific direction was issued on 06.05.2021 requiring deposit of the shortfall within six weeks. The respondents' exemption application raising inability to comply was rejected on 02.07.2021. In that setting, the existence of an executable order did not bar contempt jurisdiction, because the proceeding was founded not merely on the original Section 9 order but also on the subsequent direct command of the Court in the contempt proceedings.

Conclusion: The contempt petition was maintainable and the objection based on executability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents' failure to deposit the shortfall amount amounted to wilful and deliberate disobedience warranting a finding of contempt.

Analysis: The respondents continued to withhold compliance despite repeated directions, including the specific order of 06.05.2021 and the rejection of their exemption request. Their inability to raise funds and repeated attempts to re-agitate rejected grounds were treated as insufficient to excuse compliance. The Court held that repeated noncompliance after clear directions and rejection of the same defence demonstrated deliberate conduct undermining the authority of the Court.

Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of civil contempt for deliberate and wilful disobedience of the orders dated 19.08.2020 and 06.05.2021.

Final Conclusion: The contempt petition succeeded on the issue of guilt, but the question of punishment was deferred and the respondents were granted a further opportunity to comply before the next hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An executable order does not oust contempt jurisdiction where the court has issued a further specific direction whose breach is deliberate, and repeated noncompliance after rejection of the same defence constitutes wilful disobedience amounting to civil contempt.

---