Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate contested factual narratives or substitute for execution proceedings.

The Petitioner entered into a Lease Agreement with the Respondents in 2017 for a property named "Jannat Valley".

Following disputes, the Petitioner invoked arbitration and sought interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

On 02.08.2024, the Court granted a status quo order regarding the leased area.

The Petitioner subsequently filed two contempt petitions—CCP(O) 91/2024 and 103/2024—alleging that the Respondents and third-party caterers (Jain Caterers) violated the order by hosting events and creating third-party rights.

Conversely, the Respondents filed CCP(O) 24/2025, alleging the Petitioner pressured the Local Commissioner to alter his report.

During the pendency of these petitions, an Arbitrator was appointed, and the Section 9 petition was converted into a Section 17 application before the Arbitral Tribunal.

Whether the Respondents and their agents committed wilful disobedience of the status quo order dated 02.08.2024 by continuing business operations and hosting events at the subject premises.

Whether the Court should continue to exercise contempt jurisdiction once the underlying interim application has been relegated to an Arbitral Tribunal.

The Court primarily applied Sections 2, 10, and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.

It relied on the principle that contempt jurisdiction is extraordinary and must be exercised with "utmost circumspection," requiring a clear and unambiguous case of "wilful disobedience".

The Court cited Suman Sankar Bhunia v. Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty [2026 SCC OnLine Del 276] to reiterate that contempt is not a substitute for execution proceedings or a forum for resolving contested factual narratives.

The Court observed that the operative direction in the 02.08.2024 order was the maintenance of status quo.

It noted that on the date the order was passed, the Respondents were already in possession and hosting events with Jain Caterers; thus, continuing these activities did not necessarily disturb the "standstill" as it existed at the time of the order.

The Court further reasoned that since the Section 9 petition had been relegated to the Arbitrator for confirmation as a Section 17 application, the High Court should not continue to hold seisin over the issue.

Given the contested factual claims regarding the nature of the third-party involvement (vendors vs. lessees), the Court found no clear evidence of "wilful and contumacious" defiance.

Consequently, the Respondents chose not to press CCP(O) 24/2025, which was also dismissed.

The Court concluded that the power to punish for contempt cannot be used to settle disputed questions of fact or as a routine remedy.