The court ruled that civil contempt requires clear evidence of willful disobedience, which was not established due to the respondents' financial difficulties.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - The petitioner-company has alleged in this petition that the respondents have committed contempt of this Court, by willfully disobeying specific direction issued by this Court in the order dated 17.02.2020 passed in Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.7/2020 (later numbered as Arbitration Petition No.309/2020). The petitioner seeks imposition of maximum punishment on respondent Nos.2 to 4 as Directors and persons in-charge of the affairs of the respondent No.1-company. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed their affidavits in reply in the contempt petition. It is relevant to note that at pre-admission stage, respondent No.4 had filed an affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent No.1-company.

2. After admission of this contempt petition, the notice issued to respondent No.1-company, was returned with the remark 'left'. The petitioner contends that in such circumstances, the present petition can be heard even against the respondent No.1-company.

3. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to briefly refer to the chronology of events leading to filing of the present contempt petition.

4. The respondent No.1-company i.e. Alba Asia Private Limited was incorporated on 18.11.2008 as a 50-50 joint venture between Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS (LDA) and Starport Logistics Limited (earlier called ABG Ports Limited). The said Starport Logistics Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Starlog Enterprises Limited, which is the parent company of the petitioner herein. It is stated on behalf of the respondents and not denied by the petitioner that Starlog Enterprises Limited has 84.99% shareholding in the petitioner-company i.e. Starlift Services Private Limited.

5. On 25.10.2017, the petitioner and respondent No.1 entered into a contract for hiring Mobile Harbour Crane (MHC) from December 2017 to February 2019, which was subsequently extended for a further period of one year. The respondents have placed much emphasis on the fact that at the said stage when the aforesaid contract was executed in the year 2017, the promoter of Starport Logistics Limited i.e. Mr. Saket Agarwal was also the director of respondent No.1-company alongwith one Mr. Ravishankar Gopalan, with respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Gildas Patrick Michel Maire and Antoine Louis Henri Person, both French nationals, being the other two directors. It is also a matter of record that during the period between 2018 to 2019, the said Mr. Saket Agarwal proposed the name of respondent No.4 i.e. Mr. Anurabh Tripathi as director of respondent No.1-company, but the said proposal was rejected by respondent No.2. However, respondent No.4 continued to provide assistance and consultation to respondent No.1-company.

6. On 18.02.2019, the said Mr. Saket Agarwal and Mr. Ravishankar Gopalan resigned as directors of respondent No.1-company, with the result that only respondent Nos.2 and 3 were left as the directors.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that till October 2019, the hire charges for MHC were paid every month by respondent No.1, on the basis