JUDGMENT - S.S. NIJJAR, J.:---This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners stating that the undertaking given by the respondent No. 3 on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has not been complied with. An order in terms of the consent terms was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 4th August, 1999. In Clause 11(a) of the consent terms, it was provided as follows: 11(a). The appellants and the respondents agree and undertake to this Hon'ble Court to obtain a consent decree in terms of these consent terms in the suit/proceeding before the Appropriate Forum. 2.In spite of the aforesaid undertaking, the consent terms have not been filed in the appropriate forum. Thus, there is no decree in terms of the consent terms in favour of the petitioners. Repeatedly, the respondents were informed to execute the consent terms. On 11th January, 2000, the Counsel for the petitioners requested the respondents to sign the consent terms. A reminder was sent on 20th January, 2000. Thereafter another reminder was sent on 2nd February, 2000. However, in spite of repeated assurances, the consent terms were not signed. Ultimately, the matter appeared for hearing and time was sought for complying with the order dated 4th August, 1999. On 28th February, 2000 some time was granted. Thereafter the matter appeared before this Court on 24th March, 2000. Again a plea was made on behalf of the respondents that some time may be granted for filing the consent terms. It was specifically stated in the affidavit that the company is indebted to a number of financial institutions. At the time when the order dated 4th August, 1999 was passed, the other financial institutions were not taken into confidence. On 24th March, 2000 this Court was of the view that it is a clear case of deliberate disobedience of the order dated 4th August, 1999 by the respondents. However, in the interest of justice 14 days time was granted to comply with the order. This order was not complied with. On 7th April, 2000, this Court issued notices to the respondents to show cause under Contempt of Courts Act. Affidavits have been filed by the respondents. One of the pleas taken by the respondent No. 2 is that the respondent No. 3 was not authorized to file the consent terms. The other submissions made by Mr. On 7th April, 2000, this Court issued notices to the respondents to show cause under Contempt of Courts Act. Affidavits have been filed by the respondents. One of the pleas taken by the respondent No. 2 is that the respondent No. 3 was not authorized to file the consent terms. The other submissions made by Mr. Shah are the reiteration of the submissions which have been earlier made. He has submitted that the liability of the respondents to the petitioners is not denied. The respondents are even prepared to suffer a decree on admission. However, if the respondent No. 3 is compelled to sign the consent terms, all the other financial institution have threatened to call in all the loans which have been advanced to him. On the one hand, the petitioners will gain nothing and on the other hand, a running business would have to be closed down. He has further submitted that the market value of the trademark onjus is in the region of Rs. 100 Crores. On the other hand, the amounts which are outstanding to the various financial institutions are in the region of Rs. 200 Crores. 3.I have considered the arguments put forward by the learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the considered opinion that the respondent No. 3 has clearly committed Contempt of Court. He ought to have made the necessary enquiries from the financial institutions prior to signing the consent terms on the basis of which the order was passed by the Division Bench on 4th August, 1999. The respondent No. 3, therefore, has to be punished for contempt. But whilst exercising the powers for punishment for Contempt of Court, the Courts have to act with circumspection. The Court has to examine the circumstances which led to the disobedience of the order. As noticed by the Supreme court in the case of (R.N. Dey and others v. Bhagyabati Pramani and others)1, reported in 2000(4) Supreme Court Cases 400, the contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised for maintenance of the Court's dignity and majesty of law. In the present case, the respondent No. 3 has been contrite from the very beginning. No arguments were addressed on the earlier occasion also and the respondent No. 3 had expressed unqualified apology. Respondent No. 3 has placed himself in a very unfortunate situation. In the present case, the respondent No. 3 has been contrite from the very beginning. No arguments were addressed on the earlier occasion also and the respondent No. 3 had expressed unqualified apology. Respondent No. 3 has placed himself in a very unfortunate situation. If he signs the consent terms all the other loan facilities are liable to be recalled. If he does not sign the consent terms he disobeys the order of the Division Bench. Respondent No. 3 has clearly been rendered helpless. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper for the Court to temper justice with mercy. I am constrained to take this view on the footing that the Counsel for the respondents has readily agreed to suffer a decree on admission, if and when the appropriate application is filed in the proceedings which are already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Thus, an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. As noticed earlier, respondent No. 3 has given an unqualified apology. On each hearing he has been present in Court. It would, therefore, be in the interest of justice to accept the unqualified apology. The apology is accepted. 4.In view of the above, it would be sufficient to administer a word of caution to the respondent No. 3 to make sure that in future no undertaking is given to a Court which he is not able to fulfill. The respondent No. 3 is accordingly cautioned. Contempt petition disposed of. Certified copy expedited. Petition disposed accordingly. ------