The legal principle established is that the violation of a Settlement Agreement, even if taken on record by the court, may not necessarily warrant contempt proceedings if it does not substantially interfere with the due course of justice.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. Present Contempt Petition is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate, intentional and wilful disobedience of the orders of this court dated 12.01.2015, 19.02.2016 and 29.5.2017. A winding up petition was filed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner alleging non-payment of USD 35,740,136/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. The winding up petition was filed during pendency of arbitration proceedings started by respondent No.3. In the winding up petitions the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 8.1.2015. The Settlement Agreement was filed before this court and the winding up petitions were disposed of on 12.1.2015.

2. The admitted position is that as per the Settlement Agreement the petitioner had undertaken to pay a sum of 30.37 million USD in stated 12 instalments. The settlement also provided that if there is default in payment of the said instalment amounts in accordance with the payment schedule then the entire outstanding amount of USD 35,740,136/- less any amount paid under the said Agreement would become payable immediately.

3. After some default the petitioners have paid the amount in terms of the Settlement Agreement, namely, USD 30.37 million plus interest.

4. Subsequently the respondent No.3 filed an application before the Company Court seeking revival of the winding up proceedings in view of the default committed by the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the stated clause of the Settlement Agreement which provided that in case of default by the petitioner the full amount of USD 35,740,136/- was payable by the petitioner.

This Court by order dated 29.5.2017 dismissed the said application holding that as the respondent No.3 company had accepted the payment in the extended period that too with interest on the defaulted instalments, then merely because there was a default in making payments, revival of the Company Petition for winding up was not justified. The Court also noted that if a time limit is provided by the consent order the court has jurisdiction/power to extend such time stated in the consent terms filed by the parties and the said terms would merge in the order of the Court.

5. Based on the order dated 29.05.2017, the Settlement Agreement and the order of this court dated 12.01.2015 accepting the Settlement Agreement, the petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have failed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 8.1.2015 despite receipt of the full amount as has been noted by this Court in the order dated 29.5.2017. The grievance of the petitioner is that under Clause 7 of the Settlement Agreement Trina Solar’s receipts for each instalment duly paid were to be duly released to the petitioner. This particular document entitles the owners of the solar modules for a warranty for 25 years. It has been pleaded that though the petitioner has paid the entire dues the respondents have illegally and contrary to the terms of the Settlement and order of this court withheld the Trina Solar’s Receipts which the respondent was obliged to release.

Another grievance of the petitioner is that as per Clause 6 of the said Agreement the respondents were obliged to withdraw the pending arbitral proceedings which has not been done.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ram Narang vs. Ramesh Narang and Another, (2006) 11 SCC 114 and Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co.(P) Ltd. and Another, (1996) 4 SCC 622 to contend that even in the event there is no undertaking recorded by the respondents in the order of this Court dated 12.1.2015 accepting the Settlement Agreement, the present Contempt proceedings would lie against the respondents.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the responden