Contempt requires wilful disobedience; creditor-approved CIRP withdrawal under section 12A did not breach the earlier order.

Contempt could not be sustained where the challenged filing of a section 12A Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code withdrawal application was made pursuant to a committee of creditors decision and Regulation 30A. The earlier order protected the erstwhile resolution professional's steps and fees, but it did not expressly bar action on a later creditor-approved withdrawal resolution. Civil contempt requires wilful and deliberate disobedience proved beyond reasonable doubt, and no contumacious intent was shown on the record. The tribunal therefore rejected the request to initiate contempt proceedings and held that the alleged breach was neither explicit nor wilful.

---

---

Issues: Whether contempt proceedings could be initiated against the respondents for filing an application under section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking withdrawal of the CIRP, and whether such filing amounted to wilful disobedience of the Tribunal's earlier order protecting the erstwhile resolution professional's fees and expenses.

Analysis: The earlier order had protected the steps taken by the erstwhile resolution professional and the CIRP fees paid or payable in terms of the impugned order, but it did not prohibit the resolution professional from acting on a later decision of the committee of creditors under section 12A. The record showed that the committee of creditors, by the requisite voting share, resolved to withdraw the CIRP and also declined approval of the CIRP expenses claimed by both the former and the present resolution professionals. In that situation, the filing of the withdrawal application under section 12A and Regulation 30A was a statutory act taken pursuant to the committee's approval. For civil contempt, wilful and deliberate disobedience must be shown beyond reasonable doubt; where the act complained of is supported by a statutory mechanism and no contumacious intent is established, contempt is not made out.

Conclusion: No contempt was made out. The application for initiating contempt proceedings was rejected, and the decision is against the appellant and in favour of the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: A contempt petition does not lie where the challenged act is done in compliance with a statutory procedure and the alleged violation of the earlier order is neither explicit nor wilful.

---