Court dismisses contempt petition due to financial constraints & compliance under SICA.

The court dismissed the contempt petition and dropped the proceedings against the respondents, finding that the delay in payment was not wilful disobedience but due to financial constraints and legal restrictions under SICA. The court recognized the respondents' genuine difficulties and their compliance by eventually paying the entire amount by March 2003.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged wilful disobedience of the court order dated 26-5-1997.
2. Alleged breach of the undertaking dated 21-2-1995.
3. Applicability of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA).
4. Determination of "wilful disobedience" under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Wilful Disobedience of the Court Order Dated 26-5-1997:
The petitioners alleged that the respondents wilfully disobeyed the court order dated 26-5-1997 by failing to deposit Rs. 7 crores. The respondents argued that the order could not be complied with due to the financial constraints and the declaration of the respondent No. 1 as a sick company under SICA. The court recognized that the respondents faced genuine financial difficulties and were under the constraints of BIFR directives, which restricted them from alienating any assets. The court concluded that the delay in payment was not wilful but due to circumstances beyond the respondents' control. The entire amount of Rs. 7 crores was eventually paid by March 2003.

2. Alleged Breach of the Undertaking Dated 21-2-1995:
The petitioners contended that the respondents breached the undertaking by not keeping the bank guarantee alive. The court noted that the original undertaking dated 21-2-1995 was rendered inconsequential by the subsequent orders of 25-4-1997 and 26-5-1997. Specifically, the court on 26-5-1997 directed the respondents to deposit Rs. 7 crores instead of proceeding against them for breach of the undertaking. Hence, the issue of breach of undertaking was no longer alive.

3. Applicability of Section 22 of SICA:
The respondents argued that their inability to comply with the court's order was due to the restrictions imposed by Section 22 of SICA, which prevents recovery of dues from a sick company without BIFR's consent. The court acknowledged the relevance of SICA and the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Davy Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which held that arrears of taxes and similar dues from sick companies could not be recovered through coercive processes without BIFR's consent. The court found that the respondents' non-compliance was due to these legal constraints and not wilful disobedience.

4. Determination of "Wilful Disobedience" under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions to clarify the meaning of "wilful disobedience." It emphasized that wilful disobedience implies intentional and deliberate action with a bad motive. The court must be satisfied that the disobedience was not due to bona fide or unintentional reasons. In this case, the court found that the respondents' delay in payment was due to financial constraints and legal restrictions under SICA, and not due to any intentional or contumacious conduct. Therefore, the court concluded that no case of wilful disobedience was made out.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the contempt petition and dropped the proceedings against the respondents, concluding that the respondents did not wilfully disobey the court's orders and their conduct was not contumacious. The court acknowledged the financial difficulties and legal constraints faced by the respondents under SICA, which justified the delay in payment.

---