IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-08-2005 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM Contempt Appeal Nos.15 and 16 of 2004 ------ Cont.A.No.15 of 2004: 1. M/s. Jamals, Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.S.C.M.Jamaldeen Mount Chambers, No.758, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2. J.C.Shameem Cassim 3. M/s. Jamals, A partnership firm, Rep. by its Partner Mr.M.A.Mohamed Sirajudeen, Mount Chambers, No.758, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. .. Appellants vs. 1. P.Syamala Proprietrix, Prajwal Associates. 2. P.Bhaskara Reddy 3. R.Gopinathan 4. G.Padmini 5. G.Bhupesh 6. G.Mona 7. M/s.Niruba & Co., Rep. by its Partner R.Gopinathan No.46, I Street, Sait Colony, Egmore, Chennai-8. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. M/s.R.P.G.Builders, Rep. by its Partner G.Padmini, No.46, I Street, Sait Colony, Egmore, Chennai-8. 9. A.Dhanasekaran, Sub Registrar. O/o. The Sub Registrar P.H.Road, Periamet, Chennai-3. 10. K.S.Abdur Rawoof 11. V.M.A.Jahanara Rep. by her Power Agent K.S.Abdul Rawoof. 12. Mohamed Imran Sait 13. Abdul Khader Sulaiman 14. Mohamed Rafiq Moosa 15. C.R.Kaiser 16. Dr.David V.Rajan 17. Mohamed Arshadu Ali Rep. By his father and Attorney M.E.Mohamad Sheriff 18. S.M.Noordeen 19. S.Mariyam Jamaliya Rep. by her Power Agent S.A.Ahmed. 20. Anjum Rahim Khan 21. T.M.Athiya Mariyam Rep. by her father & guardian T.M.Abdul Shakoor 22. M.M.Fathima Fasmin Rep. by her Power of Attorney Agent M.A.Mohamed Yousuf 23. K.S.A.Mehrajunesha Rep. by her Attorney Mohamed Hussain 24. Sherbanu Moosa (Respondents 3 to 24 given up) .. Respondents Cont.A.No.16 of 2004: 1. R.Gopinathan 2. G.Padmini 3. G.Bhupesh 4. G.Mona 5. M/s.Niruba & Co., Rep. by its Partner R.Gopinathan No.46, I Street, Sait Colony, Egmore, Chennai-8. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. M/s.R.P.G.Builders, Rep. by its Partner G.Padmini, No.46, I Street, Sait Colony, Egmore, Chennai-8. .. Appellants Vs. 1. P.Syamala Proprietrix, Prajwal Associates. 2. P.Bhaskara Reddy 3. M/s. Jamals, Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.S.C.M.Jamaldeen Mount Chambers, No.758, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 4. J.C.Shameem Cassim Mount Chambers, No.758, Anna Salai, Chennai 2. 5. A.Dhanasekaran, Sub Registrar. O/o. The Sub Registrar P.H.Road, Periamet, Chennai-3. 6. K.S.Abdur Rawoof 7. V.M.A.Jahanara Rep. by her Power Agent K.S.Abdul Rawoof. 8. Mohamed Imran Sait 9. Abdul Khader Sulaiman 10. Mohamed Rafiq Moosa 11. C.R.Kalser 12. Dr.David V.Rajan 13. Mohamed Arshadu Ali Rep. By his father and Attorney M.E.Mohamed Sheriff 14. S.M.Noordeen 15. S.Mariyam Jamaliya Rep. by her Power Agent S.A.Ahmed. 16. Anjum Rahim Khan 17. T.M.Athiya Mariyam Rep. by her father & guardian T.M.Abdul Shakoor 18. M.M.Fathima Fasmin Rep. by her Power of Attorney Agent M.A.Mohamed Yousuf https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 19. K.S.A.Mehrajunesha Rep. by her Attorney Mohamed Hussain 20. Sherbanu Moosa ..Respondents Contempt Appeals against the order passed by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.K.Rajan in Contempt Petition No.319 of 2004 dated 20.12.2004. For Appellants in Cont.A.No.15of 2004 :Mr.Habibulla Badsha,S.C. for Mr.S.A.Rajan For Appellants in Cont.A.No.16 of 2004 :Mr. R.Gandhi, S.C. for M/s.N.V.S.Associates For Respondents 1 & 2 in both the Appeals : Mr.R.Thyagarajan COMMON JUDGMENT M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. P.Syamala, the Proprietrix of Prajwal Associates and P.Bhaskara Reddy filed a suit against the defendants 1 to 6 for specific performance or in the alternative, for return of the advance amount for the oral sale. Pending the suit, they filed an application for attachment of the suit property before judgment. The same was ordered. Despite that, the respondents/defendants sold the property to others and executed sale deeds which were presented in the Sub Registrar's Office for registration. This is the subject matter of contempt in the contempt application filed by Syamala and Bhaskara Reddy, the plaintiffs, the applicants in the Contempt Application No.319 of 2004. 2. Justice A.K.Rajan, the learned single Judge, ultimately after enquiry held the contemners 1 to 6, 7, 8 and 24 guilty of the offence under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts act and sentenced them to undergo six months imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of the contemners. The contemners 7, 8 and 24 have filed appeal in Contempt Appeal No.15 of 2004 and the contemners 1 to 6 have also filed separate appeal in Contempt Appeal No.16 of 2004 challenging this order before this Division Bench. 3. The relevant facts that are required for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: "(a) P.Syamala and P.Bhaskara Reddy, the applicants in the contempt application entered into an oral agreement of sale with one R.Gopinathan and others, the owners of the suit property, the contemners. In pursuance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the same, they paid Rs.70 lakhs towards the sale advance amount to Gopinathan and others, the owners of the property on 9.5.2001. (b) On 8.7.2002, Gopinathan and others,the owners of the suit property without reference to the oral agreement of sale with Syamala and another, entered into a registered agreement of sale with M/s.Jamals, the 7th contemner. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs.1,45,00,000/-. M/s.Jamals paid Rs.15,00,000/- as advance sale money. (c) On 22.8.2002, Gopinathan and others, the contemners 1 to 6 executed and registered a power instrument in favour of M/s. Jamals, the 7th contemner after receiving the entire sale consideration. On coming to know of this, on 18.9.2002, Syamala and Bhaskara Reddy filed a suit in C.S.No.644 of 2002 for specific performance or in the alternative, for return of the advance amount against the defendants 1 to 6/contemners 1 to 6. Pending suit, they filed applications in O.A.Nos.640 and 641 of 2002 praying for interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienation of the suit property. (d) These applications for injunction from alienation were taken up for final disposal on 25.11.2002. The learned single Judge of this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed the applications rejecting the prayer for injunction from alienation. Against the said order, the plaintiffs filed appeals in O.S.A.Nos.422 and 423 of 2002 before the Division Bench of this Court. By the order dated 12.12.2002, the Division Bench passed an interim order against the defendants 1 to 6 and M/s.Jamals, the 7th contemner to deposit Rs.70 lakhs into the Court within two weeks from the date of the order, failing which the applications for injunction shall stand allowed and as such, there will be an order of injunction from alienation in both the applications as prayed for. (e) M/s.Jamals, the 7th contemner filed a special leave petition against the order to deposit the amount. Similarly, Gopinathan and others, the defendants 1 to 6 also filed separate special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted stay of the impugned order of injunction passed by the High Court and however, directed the defendants 1 to 6/contemners 1 to 6 to deposit Rs.70 lakhs and in case of non-deposit, the plaintiffs will be at liberty to take any action as is available to them in law as against the defendants 1 to 6. This order was passed on 5.5.2003. (f) As no deposit was made by the defendants 1 to 6, the plaintiffs filed an application on 15.5.2003 in Application No.2295 of 2003 for attachment of the schedule property before judgment. This matter came up before Justice C.Nagappan. In that matter, the contemners 1 to 6 alone were the parties. Justice C.Nagappan by the order dated 21.5.2003, after hearing the counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 6/contemners 1 to 6, passed an order directing for status quo. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (g) On 27.6.2003, M/s.Jamals, the 7th defendant/7th contemner filed an application for being impleaded to enable him to oppose the application for ABJ. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the impleading petition was allowed. Thereafter, the 7th defendant filed an application on 28.6.2003, requesting to dismiss the application for ABJ. On 31.7.2003, Justice A.K.Rajan took up the application for ABJ and heard the counsel for the parties and allowed the application for attachment of the suit property before judgment, rejecting the application filed by the 7th contemner. (h) Against the said order, M/s.Jamals, the 7th defendant filed an appeal in O.S.A.No.261 of 2003 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench headed by Justice R.Jayasimha Babu as an interim measure directed ABJ in respect of certain other properties. (i) Ultimately, the matter in O.S.A.No.261 of 2003 was taken up for final disposal by the Division Bench comprising of Justice N.Dhinakar and Justice A.Kulasekaran. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Division Bench by the order dated 20.1.2004 set aside the order of attachment dated 31.7.2003 and lifted the attachment on the suit property and directed attachment on alternative properties other than the suit property, belonging to the defendants 1 to 6 which were given as security. (j) In the meantime, when the status quo order was in force, the sale deeds dated 30.5.2003 and 13.6.2003 were executed and presented for registration. The 7th contemner was impleaded in the application on 27.6.2003. Thereafter, the sale deeds dated 9.7.2003 and 25.7.2003 were executed and presented for registration. Similarly, subsequent to the order of attachment dated 31.7.2003 passed by Justice A.K.Rajan, the sale deeds dated 29.8.2003, 14.11.2003, 28.11.2003 and 2.1.2004 were executed and presented to the Sub Registrar's Office for registration. (k) Since the matter is pending in the High Court, the Sub Registrar/the 9th contemner though received the documents, kept them without registration awaiting the final orders of the High Court. As indicated above, the final orders were passed by the Division Bench on 20.1.2004 setting aside the attachment order passed by Justice A.K.Rajan by lifting the attachment on the suit property. On receipt of the said intimation, the Sub Registrar registered the sale deeds on 23.1.2004. (l) The plaintiffs contending that the very act of the execution of the sale deeds and presentation of the same for registration, while the status quo order dated 21.5.2003 passed by Justice C.Nagappan and the ABJ order dated 31.7.2003 passed by Justice A.K.Rajan were in force, would amount to violation of these orders which is liable to be punished for contempt, even though the said sale deeds were registered on 23.1.2004, subsequent to the order of the Division Bench setting aside the order of attachment, had filed the contempt application before Justice A.K.Rajan as against the vendors, power agent, Sub Registrar and purchasers. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (m) As indicated above, Justice A.K.Rajan found guilty of contempt against the contemners 1 to 7, 8 and 24, which necessitated the said contemners to file these two appeals in Contempt Appeal Nos.15 and 16 of 2004." 4. Mr.Habibulla Badsha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Contempt Appeal No.15 of 2004 and Mr.R.Gandhi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Contempt Appeal No.16 of 2004 would elaborately argue pointing out various infirmities in the findings of Justice A.K.Rajan, the learned single Judge and contend that the appellants are liable to be discharged from the contempt proceedings and in any event, the imposition of sentence of imprisonment is so harsh and in view of the unconditional apology tendered by them through the affidavits filed before the learned single Judge, at least, they should have been admonished on accepting the apology. 5. In justification of the findings given by the learned single Judge, Mr.R.Thyagarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would strenuously submit that the conduct of the appellants/contemners in the execution of the sale deeds and presentation of the same for registration pending ABJ order, would amount to contumacious and therefore, they must be punished with suitable sentence. 6. The learned counsel for both the parties took pain in referring to various portions of the order impugned and documents filed in the form of typed set and cited cart-load of authorities to substantiate their respective pleas. We must make a special mention about the thorough preparation made by Mr.R.Thyagarajan,the learned counsel for the respondents, who collected important decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject and filed the same in the form of typed set and also filed the other typed sets containing the copies of the documents filed in the suit before the single Judge, O.S.As. before the Division Benches and in the S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. 7. Before dealing with the same, let us at the outset refer to the findings given by the learned single Judge.The findings rendered by the learned single Judge are as follows: "(A) The status quo order dated 21.5.2003 was passed only after hearing the respondents 1 to 7 and as such, they were parties to the proceedings. The order of status quo dated 21.5.2003 got merged with the order of ABJ passed on 31.7.2003. Therefore, the order of status quo was in force from 21.5.2003 to 31.7.2003 and the same was continued to be in force till 20.1.2004 on which date, the ABJ order was set aside. Therefore, till 20.1.2004, there was an order of attachment and also an order to maintain status quo of the suit property. Admittedly, the sale deeds were executed and registered during this period, prior to 20.1.2004. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 7 have done these acts of presentation and registration in deliberate violation of the Court's orders of status quo and ABJ which were in force. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (B) As per Section 47 of the Registration Act, when a document is presented earlier, but it is subsequently registered, it relates back to the date of presentation. Admittedly, the documents were presented during the period when the status quo order was in force. Therefore, the transfer is deemed to have taken place on the date of presentation, i.e. on the date when the order of status quo was in force. The respondents 1 to 7 failed to maintain status quo. On the other hand, they transferred their right. They had executed the sale deeds and presented for registration. This act of transferring the title of property is nothing but deliberate and open disobedience of the orders of the Court. The 8th respondent is a partner of the 7th respondent. Therefore, he is also proved to have committed contempt of Court. (C) The 9th respondent is the Sub Registrar. According to him, as per the Standing Order No.28, he was to receive the documents and keep them pending without registration and only after receipt of the order in O.S.A.No.261 of 2003 lifting the attachment on 22.1.2004, he registered the sale documents on 23.1.2004. In view of his explanation, it shall be held that his act of keeping the document as pending does not amount to disobedience of the orders of this Court and therefore, he has not committed the act of contempt of Court and he is discharged. (D) In so far as the respondents 10 to 19 are concerned, they are bona fide purchasers for value and on that date, no order of attachment was in force. Therefore, there is no sufficient material to accept the contention that they have abetted the act of contempt. The proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi criminal in nature and the act complained of should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Since this is not proved, no contempt is made out as against the respondents 10 to 19. The respondents 20 to 23 and 25 are also bona fide purchasers. Therefore, they are also found not guilty of contempt of Court. (E) The 24th respondent M.A.Mohamed Sirajudeen is one of the partners of the 7th respondent M/s.Jamals. One partner representing the same firm executed the sale deed in favour of another partner, viz., the 24th respondent. The entire acts taken together would show that the 24th respondent is also a party to the contempt of Court. Therefore, the 24th respondent is guilty of contempt of Court." 8. Assailing these findings, Mr.Habibulla Badsha, the learned senior counsel and Mr.R.Gandhi, the learned senior counsel, both would make the following contentions: "(A) When the Division Bench allowed O.S.A. setting aside the order of ABJ passed by Justice A.K.Rajan lifting the attachment on suit property and attached some other properties of the contemners 1 to 6 worth more than Rs.2 crores as security for suit amount, embargo on registration disappears and no contempt is made out as against the vendors, especially when the claim of the applicants in the contempt application is well protected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (B) As per Section 17 of the Registration Act, transfer will effect only after registration of the document. Unless a document is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, there is no transfer of property. Even though Section 47 of the Registration Act provides that when a document is presented earlier, but it is subsequently registered, it relates back to the date of presentation, mere execution and presentation for registration does not confer any right since there is no transfer. (C) The effect of the order of ABJ passed on 31.7.2003 would only mean that there is a charge or lien on the said property and any alienation pending the order of attachment would at the most be void as per Section 64(2) C.P.C. While the attachment order is in force, if any transfer is made, in contravention of the order of attachment, it would only result in the civil consequence. It will not amount to an act of committing contempt of Court. (D) The status quo order was passed on 21.5.2003 by Justice C.Nagappan. Earlier, the order of injunction from alienation was vacated by the Supreme Court. As such, there is no injunction for alienation. Even assuming that the act of presentation for registration before the Sub Registrar would affect the status quo order which was in force, it is for Justice C.Nagappan to deal with the matter to find out whether his order dated 21.5.2003 has been violated. Justice A.K.Rajan gave a finding only with reference to the violation of the status quo order passed by Justice C.Nagappan and not with reference to the ABJ order passed by him." 9. In reply to the above submissions, the gist of the arguments advanced by Mr.R.Thyagarajan, the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs is as follows: "(i) The interim order directing status quo was passed by Justice C.Nagappan on 21.5.2003. The final order of ABJ by Justice A.K.Rajan was passed on 31.7.2003. The interim order dated 21.5.2003 got merged with the final order of ABJ dated 31.7.2003. During this period, despite knowing that these orders were in force, the sale deeds were executed by the 7th contemner as power agent on behalf of the contemners 1 to 6 and presented before the Sub Registrar's Office for registration. This is wilful act. (ii) Even though the documents were registered on 23.1.2004, i.e. subsequent to the order of the Division Bench setting aside the ABJ order dated 20.1.2004, the very presentation of the sale documents for registration itself would amount to interference with the orders of the Court. Further, the order dated 20.1.2004 setting aside the attachment order is under challenge before the Supreme Court. The order dated 21.5.2003 by Justice C.Nagappan got merged with the final order by Justice A.K.Rajan dated 31.7.2003. During this period, the sale deeds were executed and presented by the respondents 1 to 7 knowing fully well about the orders of status quo as well as ABJ. This would amount to violation of the Court's order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) The sale deeds presented though not registered during the relevant period, under Section 47 of the Registration Act, the registration would relate back to the date of presentation. Therefore, the date of presentation must be construed to be the date of registration. In other words, the transfer is deemed to have taken place on the date of presentation, i.e. on the date when the order of status quo was in force. Therefore, it has to be held that the contemners have been correctly found guilty for violation of both the orders, namely status quo and ABJ." 10. Mr.Habibulla Badsha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Contempt Appeal No.15 of 2004 and Mr.R.Gandhi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Contempt Appeal No.16 of 2004 would cite the following authorities: (1) ANIL RATAN SARKAR AND OTHERS v. HIRAK GHOSE AND OTHERS (2002 (4) S.C.C. 21) (2) JHARESWAR PRASAD PAUL AND ANOTHER v. TARAKNATH GANGULY AND OTHERS (2002 (3) C.T.C. 122) (3) R.N.DEY AND OTHERS v. BHAGYABATI PRAMANIK AND OTHERS (2004 (4) S.C.C. 400) (4) SURESH CHANDRA PODDA v. DHANI RAM AND OTHERS (2002(1)C.T.C. 565) (5) DINABANDHU SAHU v. STATE OR ORISSA (1.I.R. 1972 S.C. 180) (6) SMT. PUKSHPABEN AND ANOTHER v. BADIANI AND ANOTHER (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1536) (7) N.RATHINASABAPATHY v. K.S. PALANIAPPA KANDAR AND OTHERS (1996(1) L.W. 746) (8) PAPARAJU VEERARAGHAVAYYA v. KILLARU KAMALA DEVI AND OTHERS (A.I.R. 1935 Madras 193) (9) SUKUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY v. T.D.KARAMCHANDANI (1995, Crl.L.J. 1610) (10) ABDUL RAZACK SAHIB v. AZIZ UNNISSA BEGUM (A.I.R. 1970 Mad.14) (11) GURUPRASAD v. NEELAGANTAN (1996 CRL.L.J. 1892) (12) OFFICIAL RECEIVER, MUZZAFARNAGAR v. CHANDRA AND OTHERS (MANU/UP/0019/1977 = A.I.R. 1977 All.77) (13) R.N.DEY AND OTHERS v. BHAGYABATI PRAMANIK AND OTHERS (MANU/SC/02862000 = 2000(4) S.C.C.400) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (14) SMT. PUSHPABEN AND ANOTHER v. NARANDAS V.BADIANI AND ANOTHER (1979(2)S.C.C. 394) 11. Mr.R.Thyagarajan, the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would cite the following decisions: (1) PADAM SEN AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 218) (2) RAM BARAN PRASAN v. RAM MOHIT HAZRA AND OTHERS (A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 744) (3) SARDA GOVINDA RAO MAHADIK AND ANOTHER v. DEVI SAHAI AND OTHERS (A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 989) (4) OM PRAKSH GARG v. GANGA SAHAI AND OTHERS (A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 108) (5) VANNARAKKAL KALLALATHIL SRIDHARAN v. CHANDRAMAATH BALAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS (1990 (3) S.C.C. 291) (6) HAMDA AMMAL v. AVADIAPPA PATHAR AND THREE OTHERS(1991 (1) S.C.C. 715) (7) RITA MARKANDY v. SURJIT SINGH ARORAR (1996(6)S.C.C. 14) (8) R.N.DEY AND OTHERS v. BHAGYABATI PRAMANIK AND OTHERS (2004 (4) S.C.C.400) (9) CHHOTURAM v. URVASI GULATI AND ANOTHER (2001(7) S.C.C. 530) (10) MRITYUNJOY DAS AND ANOTHER v. SAYED DHASIBUR RAHAMAN AND OTHERS (2001(3)S.C.C. 739) (11) RAJENDAR SINGH v. RAMDHAR SINGH AND DOTHERS (2001(6) S.C.C. 213) (12) ANIL RATAN SARKAR AND OTHERS v. HIRAK GHOSH AND OTHERS (2002(4) S.C.C. 21) (13) PREM SURANA v. ADDITIONAL MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ANOTHER (2002 (6) S.C.C. 722) (14) P.G.PATRA v. PURAN FOODS AND ANOTHER (2003(1) S.C.C. 670) (15) M.C.MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2003(5)S.C.C. 376) (16) SANDEEP v. D.LAKSHMI AND ANOTHER (2003(1) S.C.C. 294) (17) BANK OF BARODA v. SADRUDDIN HASAN DAYA AND ANOTHER (2004(1) S.C.C. 360) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (18) Dr. PRODIP KUMAR BISWAS v. SUBRATA DAS AND OTHERS (2004(4) S.C.C. 573) (19) DAROGA SINGH AND OTHERS v. BK. PANDEY (2004(5) S.C.C. 26) (20) PRITHAWI NATH RAM v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS (2004 (7) S.C.C. 261) (21) RAGHAVA KOTIAN v. VASU POOJARY (2004(7)S.C.C. 640) (22) STATE OF BIHAR AND DOTHERS v. RAJENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER (JT 2004 (8) S.C.C. 168) (23) U.P.RESIDENTS EMP. CO.OP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY AND OTHERS v. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER (2004 (9) S.C.C. 670) (24) SUNITA DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (2004 (1) S.C.C. 608) 12. Before dealing with the respective contentions, it would be worthwhile to take note of the guidelines given by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, as laid down in the decisions cited supra, while dealing with the contempt applications. The guidelines are as follows: (1) Undoubtedly, a powerful weapon in the hands of the law Courts but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless thus otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law Courts to exercise jurisdiction under the statute. (2) Mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a "civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971-- the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act and lastly, in the event two interpretations are possible and the action of the alleged contemnor pertains to one such interpretation--the act or acts cannot be ascribed to be otherwise contumacious in nature. A doubt in the matter as regards the wilful nature of the conduct if raised, question of success in a contempt petition would not arise. The wilful conduct is a primary and basic ingredient of such an offence. (3) As regards the "standard of proof", a proceeding under