provisions thereof. A perusal of Section 12(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act shows that it pertains to “civil contempt”. Section 2(b) defines civil contempt as willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction or order of a Court “or” willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. Thus, civil contempt has two aspects, one being the willful disobedience of an order or direction of a Court and the second being willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. This Court is of the opinion that sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act have to be read in the context of the definition of “civil contempt” under Section 2(b) thereof. If the manner in which the respondents are reading Sections 12(4) and 12(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, is accepted, it would lead to an anomalous and absurd situation, where persons in-charge of or responsible to a company and a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company could be punished for contempt, only if the company is guilty of contempt for breach of an undertaking given to a Court. But, they cannot be punished for contempt if the company willfully disobeys an order or direction of the Court. In other words, even if the company commits civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, by willfully disobeying an order or direction of the Court, its directors, managers, secretaries or other officers cannot be punished for contempt of Court. This demonstrates the anomaly in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents.
