Status quo orders on shareholding cannot be bypassed by later transfers, and unexplained dilution may found contempt findings.

Status quo orders covering protected shareholding were treated as binding on both encumbered and unencumbered shares, so later transfers of unencumbered shares and reliance on prior loan documents or powers of attorney did not excuse compliance. The Court found wilful disobedience where the share movement was unexplained and no prompt clarification was sought, and recorded contempt against the financial institutions and their directors. It also found that repeated undertakings to preserve the asset base were breached by reduction and encumbrance of the listed company's shareholding, with concealment of material facts and continued dilution supporting civil contempt; the conduct was also noted to have elements of criminal contempt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer of shares by the financial institutions and their directors after the status quo orders amounted to wilful disobedience of the Court's interim directions; (ii) Whether the promoters and holding companies had violated the earlier undertakings and the status quo orders by reducing and encumbering the shareholding in the listed company.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer of shares by the financial institutions and their directors after the status quo orders amounted to wilful disobedience of the Court's interim directions.

Analysis: The interim order directing maintenance of status quo was held to cover both encumbered and unencumbered shares, and the later clarification could not justify transfer of shares that were not already encumbered. The record showed that a substantial number of shares transferred in September 2018 were unencumbered, and the plea that earlier loan documentation or power of attorney permitted such transfers did not override the Court's directions. The absence of a prompt approach for clarification and the unexplained movement of shares established knowledge of the orders and deliberate non-compliance.

Conclusion: The financial institutions and their directors were held guilty of contempt for wilfully disobeying the Court's orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the promoters and holding companies had violated the earlier undertakings and the status quo orders by reducing and encumbering the shareholding in the listed company.

Analysis: The Court relied on the repeated assurances given before the High Court and the subsequent decline in shareholding, including the reduction in unencumbered holdings, to hold that the respondents had not preserved the asset base promised to the Court. The pattern of transactions, the continued dilution of holdings, and the concealment of material facts showed a deliberate scheme to defeat the award-holder's rights. The Court treated this as civil contempt, while noting that the conduct also had the character of criminal contempt, but proceeded on the civil contempt footing.

Conclusion: The promoters and holding companies were held guilty of contempt for wilfully violating the Court's orders and undertakings.

Final Conclusion: The contempt petition was disposed of after recording findings of contempt against both sets of contemnors, with an opportunity to purge the contempt and with a fresh contempt proceeding directed in respect of the later order concerning the controlling stake transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot, directly or through its agent or attorney, do indirectly what the Court has prohibited by a status quo or protective order, and wilful disobedience may be inferred from unexplained diminution of protected shareholding contrary to solemn undertakings.

---