Civil contempt requires clear wilful breach; admission of a fresh insolvency petition did not amount to disobedience.

A contempt application was treated as timely because it was filed within one year of the impugned order, so the limitation objection failed and merits could be examined. On the substantive issue, civil contempt was not made out because wilful disobedience requires a clear, deliberate breach of a specific judicial command; admission of a fresh section 7 application for a different project under the insolvency framework was a statutory act within independent jurisdiction and was not barred by the earlier appellate order. The grievance regarding unpaid CIRP costs did not convert that admission into contempt. The application was rejected in entirety and no contempt proceedings were directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contempt application was within limitation and could be examined on merits; (ii) whether admission of a fresh section 7 application for a different project of the corporate debtor amounted to wilful disobedience of the earlier appellate order so as to constitute civil contempt.

Issue (i): Whether the contempt application was within limitation and could be examined on merits.

Analysis: The application was filed within one year from the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 that was alleged to have caused the grievance. On that basis, the objection of delay was repelled and the matter was considered on merits.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the contempt application was held to be maintainable for consideration on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether admission of a fresh section 7 application for a different project of the corporate debtor amounted to wilful disobedience of the earlier appellate order so as to constitute civil contempt.

Analysis: Civil contempt requires clear, unambiguous, and wilful disobedience. The earlier order protected fees and steps taken in the insolvency process, but it did not bar a statutory section 7 proceeding by a class of financial creditors for another project. The Adjudicating Authority acted within its statutory jurisdiction while admitting the later section 7 petition on proof of debt and default. The applicant's grievance as to unpaid CIRP costs did not convert that admission order into contempt, especially when prior proceedings had already held that the remedy lay in the original CIRP.

Conclusion: No wilful disobedience or contempt was made out, and the request to initiate contempt proceedings failed.

Final Conclusion: The application was rejected in entirety, and no contempt proceedings were directed against the Adjudicating Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Civil contempt lies only when there is clear, deliberate, and wilful breach of a specific judicial command; a statutory order passed in exercise of independent jurisdiction does not amount to contempt merely because it affects a party's collateral financial claim.

---