Contempt requires a capable and enforceable order; no wilful disobedience was made out where funds were already disbursed.

A contempt petition cannot succeed where the underlying direction was based on a mistaken factual assumption and was not an effective command capable of obedience. The text states that the sale proceeds had already been disbursed before the order was made, so the factual foundation for the direction did not exist. On that basis, no wilful disobedience by the liquidator was made out, and contempt could not be used to recover funds or convert the order into one for status quo ante when no such direction had been issued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the liquidator wilfully disobeyed the order dated 11.03.2026 so as to warrant initiation of contempt proceedings.

Analysis: The alleged order was passed on the mistaken impression that the sale proceeds were still available with the liquidator, whereas the record showed that the amount had already been disbursed on 17.02.2026. Since the factual foundation on which the order rested did not exist when it was made, the direction could not operate as a capable and enforceable command. A contempt proceeding cannot be used to obtain restoration of funds or to rewrite the order into one directing status quo ante when no such direction was actually issued.

Conclusion: No wilful disobedience was made out and the contempt petition was liable to be dismissed.

---