Wilful disobedience standard governs contempt for breach of settlement; partial compliance and financial difficulty were insufficient here.

Breach of a court-recorded settlement or affidavit of undertaking attracts contempt only where non-compliance is proved to be wilful, deliberate and contumacious. On the facts, the court found substantial compliance, with only a limited balance outstanding and the delay attributed to financial constraints, so contempt was not made out; time was granted to clear the balance, and execution remained available if payment was not made within the period allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether breach of an affidavit of undertaking and a court-recorded settlement, in the circumstances of partial compliance and claimed financial difficulty, amounted to wilful disobedience warranting contempt action.

Analysis: Contempt for breach of an undertaking or settlement can lie where the undertaking forms part of a court-recorded arrangement, but the jurisdiction is quasi-criminal and requires clear proof of wilful and deliberate disobedience. The record showed substantial compliance with the settlement, with only a comparatively small balance remaining unpaid. The delay was accepted as arising from financial constraints, and the materials did not establish contumacious conduct or an intentional disregard of the Court's authority. The remedy of execution remained available if the balance was not paid within the time granted.

Conclusion: No contempt was made out; the contempt petition was not sustained and time was granted to clear the balance amount.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings because the non-compliance was not found to be wilful or deliberate, while leaving the parties to pursue execution if the outstanding amount was not paid within the time granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A breach of a court-recorded settlement or undertaking attracts contempt only where the disobedience is proved to be wilful, deliberate, and contumacious; mere financial inability or partial non-compliance does not, by itself, constitute contempt.

---