Contempt proceedings cannot proceed while the underlying factual dispute remains pending before the DRT.

The petitioner instituted contempt proceedings alleging wilful disobedience of the final order dated 9 September 2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi, in SA No. 106/2017.

The DRT order identified certain goods and machinery which the petitioner was permitted to lift.

During the contempt proceedings, a Local Commissioner was appointed on 15 October 2025 at the respondent’s request, and the Commissioner submitted a report dated 7 November 2025 recording the petitioner’s claims regarding missing goods and machinery.

The petitioner subsequently stated that it would approach the DRT concerning the missing plant and machinery and the proposed auction.

It thereafter filed an application before the DRT seeking compensation for the allegedly missing plant, machinery and goods; that application remained pending.

Whether the High Court could proceed with the contempt petition on the basis of the petitioner’s allegation that the goods and machinery directed to be lifted under the DRT’s order were missing, while the issue remained pending adjudication before the DRT.

Whether any order could be passed in the contempt proceedings before the DRT recorded a factual finding regarding the alleged missing goods and machinery.

The Court applied the principle that contempt jurisdiction concerning alleged disobedience of a judicial direction cannot be effectively exercised on the basis of an unadjudicated factual assumption.

Where the existence, identity or absence of property relevant to compliance is disputed and the competent tribunal is already seized of that factual controversy, the High Court should refrain from proceeding on presumptions and await the tribunal’s determination.

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

The alleged disobedience depended on whether the goods and machinery identified in the DRT’s order were in fact missing.

Since the petitioner had itself invoked the DRT’s jurisdiction by filing an application seeking compensation for the allegedly missing items, the factual issue was pending before the tribunal competent to determine it.

The High Court held that it could not, in contempt proceedings, presume that the goods or machinery were missing before the DRT made a factual finding on that question.

Consequently, the necessary factual foundation for proceeding with the contempt petition was absent at that stage.

The petition was disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to revive it or pursue other remedies in accordance with law if the DRT subsequently found that the goods and machinery directed to be lifted were indeed missing.

The pending application was also disposed of.