Contempt for non-compliance with refund-direction order was found, but an unconditional apology avoided penal action.

Non-compliance with a court direction to reconsider and decide refund applications within four weeks constituted breach of the judicial mandate. The respondent's claimed lack of jurisdiction could not excuse disobedience, and correspondence between the parties could not alter or vary the court's order. The Court therefore found contempt to that extent. An unconditional and unqualified apology was, however, accepted, so penal action was declined, though the Court recorded its disapproval of the breach and awarded costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had committed contempt by not making the refund order and by not doing so within the time granted by the earlier order; (ii) whether penal action should be taken or the apology should be accepted.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had committed contempt by not making the refund order and by not doing so within the time granted by the earlier order.

Analysis: The respondent was expressly directed to reconsider and decide the refund applications within four weeks. He neither made the required order on the refund applications nor complied within the time fixed by the Court. Any alleged want of jurisdiction on his part ought to have been brought before the Court by appropriate application and could not justify non-compliance. Correspondence between the parties could not vary or modify the judicial mandate.

Conclusion: The respondent was held to be in breach of the Court's order.

Issue (ii): Whether penal action should be taken or the apology should be accepted.

Analysis: The respondent tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology. In view of that apology, penal action was declined, though the Court recorded its disapproval of the other breaches and awarded costs.

Conclusion: The apology was accepted and no penal action was taken.

Final Conclusion: The contempt was found to the extent of non-compliance with the earlier order, but the matter was closed without penal consequences, subject to costs.

---