Contempt for breach of stay order requires proved knowledge and wilful disobedience; unreliable notice is insufficient.

A charge of contempt for breaching a prohibitory stay order is not established unless knowledge of the order is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the disobedience is shown to be wilful. On the facts stated, the material placed before the Nyaya Panchayat was incomplete and unreliable, consisting of an unsupported application without a properly sworn affidavit, the date of the stay order, or a copy of the telegram. In that situation, the Panches were entitled to question the authenticity and sufficiency of the information, and the absence of recorded reasons for not adjourning the matter did not by itself prove contumacious conduct. Wilful disobedience was therefore not made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were guilty of contempt for proceeding with the Nyaya Panchayat case despite the High Court's stay order.

Analysis: Liability for contempt based on disobedience of a prohibitory order depends on proof that the person charged had knowledge of the order and that the disobedience was wilful. The material before the Nyaya Panchayat consisted only of an application unsupported by a properly sworn affidavit, without the date of the stay order and without a copy of the telegram. In these circumstances, the Panches were entitled to doubt the authenticity and sufficiency of the information placed before them. The absence of recorded reasons for not adjourning the proceedings did not, by itself, establish contumacious conduct, particularly where the body concerned was a village tribunal not expected to be versed in technical procedure.

Conclusion: The appellants were not proved to have wilfully disobeyed the High Court's order, and the finding of contempt could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of contempt for breach of a prohibitory order is not made out unless knowledge of the order is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the alleged disobedience is shown to be wilful; a bona fide refusal to act on insufficient or unreliable material does not constitute contempt.

---