Contempt proceedings are dropped after respondents comply with the tribunal’s underlying order.

The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging breach and wilful disobedience of the Tribunal’s order dated 6 January 2026 passed in O.A. No. 170/00392/2025.

During the contempt proceedings, the respondents produced a memo along with orders dated 8 June 2026 and 23 July 2026 passed by the Appellate Authority in respect of Petitioners 1 to 3, claiming compliance with the Tribunal’s earlier order.

The Tribunal took the compliance documents on record.

Counsel for the petitioners stated that there was no objection to closing the contempt proceedings in view of the reported compliance.

Whether the respondents had breached or wilfully disobeyed the Tribunal’s order dated 6 January 2026 in O.A. No. 170/00392/2025?

Whether the contempt proceedings should be closed after the respondents produced orders indicating compliance and the petitioners raised no objection?

The Tribunal applied the general principles governing contempt jurisdiction, namely that contempt proceedings require a breach or wilful disobedience of a judicial order, and that proceedings may be closed when the court is satisfied that the order has been complied with.

The Tribunal also relied on the procedural principle that compliance documents may be taken on record and that, where compliance is reported and accepted or not opposed by the aggrieved party, continuation of contempt proceedings is unnecessary.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The respondents produced the Appellate Authority’s orders dated 8 June 2026 and 23 July 2026 concerning the three petitioners, thereby demonstrating steps taken in compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 6 January 2026.

The Tribunal accepted those documents on record.

Since the petitioners’ counsel expressly stated that there was no objection to closure of the contempt proceedings in light of the compliance report, the Tribunal found no basis to continue examining the allegation of wilful disobedience.

Accordingly, the contempt proceedings were treated as having been rendered unnecessary by subsequent compliance.

The contempt petition was therefore closed/dropped, the notices were discharged, and there was no order as to costs.