Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:

• Case Details: The case is Sachin Halder vs. Md. Shaid, decided on June 23, 2009, regarding W.P. C.R.C. No. 134(W) of 2009 with W.P. No. 8208(W) of 2009. [judgement_subject][2009 Supreme(Cal) 438]
• Subject Matter: The case concerns Contempt of Court, specifically the disobedience of a court order regarding the requisition of a private vehicle for election purposes. [judgement_subject]
• Legal Basis: The proceedings are governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, specifically Sections 12 and 2(b). [judgement_act_referred]
• Core Issue: Whether the court has jurisdiction to proceed with contempt proceedings when an appeal and a stay application are pending against the order alleged to have been disobeyed. [judgement_act_referred][9000003530014]
• Court's Jurisdiction Ruling: The court held that it has jurisdiction to proceed with contempt proceedings even when an appeal and stay application are pending, though it should exercise restraint in such cases. [judgement_act_referred][9000003530017]
• Facts of the Case: The petitioner's vehicle was requisitioned for the general election. The court allowed a writ petition directing the release of the vehicle forthwith. The respondents failed to comply. (!) [9000003530001]
• Service of Order: The order was made on May 4, 2009, and served on the respondent on May 6, 2009. [9000003530003]
• Non-Compliance: The vehicle was not released immediately on May 4 or May 6, 2009. A notice for contempt proceedings was issued on May 7/8, 2009. [9000003530004]
• Respondent's Defense: The respondent argued that the filing of an appeal (MAT No. 379 of 2009) and a stay application (C.A.N. No. 4314 of 2009) justified their non-compliance. [9000003530005][9000003530010]
• Timing of Stay Application: The stay application was served on the petitioner's advocate on May 8, 2009, with a notice to move it on May 12, 2009. [9000003530005][9000003530016]
• Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal and stay application were a "charade" orchestrated by the respondent to delay compliance with the immediate order. [9000003530006][9000003530024]
• Lack of Bona Fides: The court noted the lack of seriousness in the respondent's effort to obtain a stay, as the election process was due to end on May 13, 2009, rendering a May 12 filing futile. [9000003530023]
• Legal Principle (Restraint): Mere filing of an appeal or stay does not absolve the duty to obey; however, courts should be slow to exercise contempt jurisdiction if the stay is pending and meaningful steps to obtain it were not taken. [9000003530017][9000003530019]
• Precedent Cited: The judgment references Modern Food Industries (1) Ltd. v. Sachidanand Dass (1995) Supp 4 SCC 465, noting that insisting on obedience while a stay is pending can make the appeal infructuous. [9000003530018] (!)
• Finding of Wilful Disobedience: The court found the respondent's conduct lacked bona fides and was a deliberate defiance of the order, constituting civil contempt under Section 2(b). [9000003530016][9000003530025]
• Final Decision: The respondent was held guilty of contempt and directed to appear in court on June 29, 2009, for an appropriate order. [9000003530027] (!)