Delayed service of a writ order prevents sole attribution of wilful disobedience to the bank.

The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 708 of 2025 seeking defreezing of Bank Account No. 60501297427, which had been frozen because certain amounts deposited in it were allegedly connected with a criminal investigation.

By order dated 28 January 2025, the High Court directed the Bank to ascertain, within 30 days from receipt of the certified copy, the amount involved in the criminal case and to permit the petitioner to operate the account insofar as the remaining amount was concerned, while maintaining the disputed amount in the account.

The petitioner subsequently filed the present contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973, alleging non-compliance with that order.

Although the petitioner stated that there was no delay in filing the contempt petition, the Bank’s endorsement showed that the order was served only on 1 January 2026—approximately 11 months after it was passed.

Whether the Bank’s alleged non-compliance with the order dated 28 January 2025 amounted to wilful disobedience warranting contempt action?

Whether the petitioner’s failure to serve the order for approximately 11 months affected the attribution of wilful disobedience to the Bank and the maintainability or propriety of the contempt proceedings?

Whether the Bank should be granted further time to comply with the directions issued in W.P. No. 708 of 2025?

The Court exercised contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973, which prescribe the punishment for contempt.

It also considered Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973, under which contempt proceedings cannot be initiated after one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

The governing principle applied was that civil contempt requires clear and wilful disobedience of a court order; where compliance is dependent upon receipt or service of the order, and the petitioner delays communicating the order, wilful disobedience cannot readily be attributed solely to the alleged contemnor.

The Court also relied on the specific terms of the original order, which made the Bank’s 30-day compliance period commence from receipt of the certified copy.

The original order did not require immediate compliance from the date of its pronouncement; it granted the Bank 30 days from receipt of the certified copy to identify the amount connected with the criminal case and permit operation of the balance account.

Since the petitioner served the order only on 1 January 2026, after keeping it for nearly 11 months, the Bank had not been afforded the stipulated period in which to act.

The Court found that the petitioner’s conduct constituted significant negligence and that the alleged non-compliance could not be treated as wilful disobedience solely attributable to the Bank.

Without deciding the merits or expressing a final view on maintainability, the Court considered it appropriate to provide the Bank an additional 30 days to comply with the original directions.

It granted the Bank a further 30 days to comply with the order dated 28 January 2025 in W.P. No. 708 of 2025.

The Court recorded its displeasure at the petitioner’s conduct and cautioned that failure by the Bank to comply within the extended period could result in appropriate contempt action against it, at the Bank’s own risk and consequences.

The contempt petition was accordingly disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits.