No willful disobedience was found, and therefore, the contempt petition was not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

The above contempt case is preferred alleging non-compliance with the directions in the judgment dated 09.02.2018 in WP(C) No. 6520 of 2017. By the said judgment, this Court directed the 3^rd respondent to pay the amount mentioned in Ext.P8 letter of confirmation, along with applicable interest, to the writ petitioner within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. It was further directed that, in the event of failure to comply, the petitioner would be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent authority to initiate action against the 3rd respondent under the provisions relating to liquidation and appropriation of the society's assets for the purpose of debt repayment.

2. During the pendency of this Contempt Case, the respondent preferred a Writ Appeal against the judgment. On 15.02.2019, while the appeal was pending, the contempt petition was closed with liberty to revive the case, in the event of dismissal of the appeal. Subsequently, by judgment dated 18.08.2018, the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal and confirmed the original judgment dated 09.02.2018. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition has been restored.

3. Subsequently, the Managing Director of the 3rd respondent filed an affidavit dated 06.12.2021, stating that the alleged contemnor (the then Secretary) had retired from the post of Managing Director- in-charge on 31.03.2019. It is further contended that the contemnor assumed charge only on 23.07.2018, on relieving the former MD, A. Unnikrishnan, pursuant to G.O. No. 438/2018/Co-op. dated 23.07.2018. The contemnor joined the Federation on 29.05.2017 and, therefore, lacked personal knowledge of matters or deposit-related decisions taken prior to his tenure. Furthermore, the authority to take and implement independent decisions was vested with the then-Board of Directors.

4. It is further contended that there was no wilful disobedience of the Court's directions. The payment directed could not be executed due to circumstances beyond the respondent Corporation's control, as the Federation was facing extreme financial difficulties. Consequently, various settlements were proposed, along with Government recommendations, to repay the principal amount to the Society; these proposals suggested that 50% of the interest be converted into shares, with the remaining 50% to be paid in cash. Furthermore, the audit reports from the past 20 years highlight the precarious financial position of the Society.

5. However, the petitioner refutes these contentions. The respondent (Rubber Mark) has formed a joint venture company, Rubek Balloons Pvt. Ltd., which manufactures premium quality balloons. This company has generated substantial profits; consequently, these accumulated profits should be attributed to the respondent. In these circumstances, the respondent is liable to be proceeded against and punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

6. The contemnor filed I.A. No. 1 of 2022 seeking permission to modify the order dated 24.06.2022, proposing an initial payment of ₹15 lakhs and subsequent monthly instalments of ₹10 lakhs towards the petitioner’s debt. Meanwhile, the additional 2^nd respondent (the Registrar) submitted an affidavit stating that an inspection would be initiated under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 , (for short ‘KCS Act’) to investigate the financial circumstances leading to the non-payment of the petitioner's deposit. To that end, they conducted a valuation of the 3^rd respondent Federation's assets through an approved valuer and are preparing a