JUDGMENT S.J. Kathawalla, J. - The above Contempt Petition is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by Petitioner No.1 - Scorg International Consulting Private Limited and its Director, Petitioner No. 2 - Mr. Dheeraj Prakash Jain against Respondent No. 1 - Gaurang Doshi Productions Private Limited and its Directors, Respondent No. 2 - Mr. Gaurang Doshi and Respondent No. 3 - Ms. Madhukanta Vinodrai Doshi (mother of Gaurang Doshi) for willful disobedience and contumacious breach and contempt of the Order dated 20th June, 2017 as clarified by an Order dated 7th March, 2018; passed by this Court in the above Arbitration Petition. 2. The reliefs sought in the above Contempt Petition are as follows : (a) This Court be pleased to take appropriate action against the Directors of Respondent No. 1, which are Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for having committed contempt of this Court by willful, deliberately and contumaciously breaching the Order dated 20 th June, 2017 as clarified by order dated 7 th March, 2018. (b) That this Court be pleased to impose the maximum punishment on the Directors of Respondent No. 1, which are Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as provided for in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having committed contempt of this Court as aforesaid by committing to Civil Prison the Directors of Respondent No. 1 viz. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and by imposing the fine as prescribed upon the Respondents. 3. The relevant material facts leading to the filing of the present Contempt Petition are set out hereunder : 3.1. Respondent No. 1 - Gaurang Doshi Production Private Limited was producing a feature film called Aankhen-2 ( the Suit film ) for which Petitioner No. 1 - Scorg International Consulting Private Limited was to provide finance to Respondent No. 1 of Rs. 1 Crore. Accordingly, an Agreement dated 26th December, 2015 was entered into between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 ( the Agreement ). 3.2. Clause 3 of the Agreement (at page 21 of Contempt Petition) provides that the said amount will be refunded on or before the release of the Suit film or within 12 months plus 03 months grace from the date of execution of the Agreement, whichever is earlier. 3.2. Clause 3 of the Agreement (at page 21 of Contempt Petition) provides that the said amount will be refunded on or before the release of the Suit film or within 12 months plus 03 months grace from the date of execution of the Agreement, whichever is earlier. In other words, the said amount was to be refunded by the Respondents to the Petitioners on or before 26th March, 2016. 3.3 In January-February 2016, Petitioner No. 1 paid an additional amount of Rs.25 Lacs to Respondent No. 1 under the Agreement. 3.4. Since the Suit film was not released, the amount payable by Respondent No. 1 to Petitioner No. 1 became due and payable under the Agreement on 26th March, 2017. 3.5. On 7th April, 2017, the Petitioners filed the above Arbitration Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) against the Respondents. 3.6. On 20th April, 2017, an ad-interim Order in terms of prayer Clause (c) of the above Arbitration Petition was passed by this Court (Coram : G.S.Patel, J.) directing the Respondents therein to make a disclosure of all their assets, both movables and immovable, encumbered and unencumbered including all bank accounts investment and securities held by each of them . This had to be done on or before 9th June, 2017. Though the Respondents were represented before the Court by their Advocate on 20th April, 2017 and were aware of the said Order on 20th April, 2017 itself, they neither preferred an Appeal from the said Order nor complied with the same. 3.7. On 20th June, 2017, the above Arbitration Petition came up for hearing before this Court (Coram : K.R.Shriram, J.) and the learned Judge, by his Order, made the above Arbitration Petition absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) which read as under : (a) That pending the commencement, hearing and final disposal of the arbitral proceedings, passing of the arbitral award and for a period of six weeks thereafter, this Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to deposit an amount of Rs.1,25,11,111/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs Eleven Thousand One Hundred and Eleven Only) in this Court, or such other or further sum as this Court may deem fit and appropriate . It was inter alia recorded in the said Order as follows : No Affidavit in compliance of this Order has been filed. It was inter alia recorded in the said Order as follows : No Affidavit in compliance of this Order has been filed. No explanation is coming forth as to why the Order dated 20 th April, 2017 has not been complied with. Even today, the Counsel for the respondents is unable to give any reason why the order has not been complied with. ........ There are orders against the respondents observing the conduct of the respondents. Even Contempt Petition has been filed by other parties against the respondents. By the said Order, the Contempt Petition (L) No. 55 of 2017, which was filed earlier against the Respondents, was also disposed off in the light of a statement made by Respondent No. 2 that he has no rights in the Suit film and he had published notices in compliance with the Orders of the Court. 3.8. The Petitioners'' Advocate, by his letter dated 30th June, 2017, called upon Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to comply with the Order dated 20th June, 2017 i.e. to deposit an amount of Rs.1,25,11,111/- in this Court. 3.9. Since the Respondents failed and neglected to comply with the Order dated 20th June, 2017 thereby committing willful and flagrant breach of the Order, the Petitioner on 24th October, 2017 filed the above Contempt Petition. 4. On 24th November, 2017, the above Contempt Petition was called out before this Court (Coram : M.S.Sanklecha, J.). However, since the Advocate for the Respondents sought an adjournment, the same was granted. 5. On 17th January, 2018, a Reply on behalf of Respondent No. 3 was served on the Petitioners'' Advocate. The defence of Respondent No.3 appears to be that she was not a party to the above Arbitration Petition filed under Section 9 of the Act and she assails the Order passed in the said Arbitration Petition. 6. On 1st March, 2018, the above Contempt Petition was called out before me. The Advocate for the Respondents submitted that the Order dated 20th June, 2017 does not specify as to when the Respondents should deposit the amount of Rs.1,25,11,111/-. In view thereof, liberty was granted to the Petitioners to move Justice K.R.Shriram for speaking to the minutes of Order dated 20th June, 2017 in order to specify the time within which the Respondents must deposit the amount. In view thereof, liberty was granted to the Petitioners to move Justice K.R.Shriram for speaking to the minutes of Order dated 20th June, 2017 in order to specify the time within which the Respondents must deposit the amount. On 7th March, 2018, Justice K.R.Shriram clarified his earlier Order dated 20th June, 2017 as follows : It is clarified that as no time is fixed for depositing the amount, it would mean that the amount has to be deposited forthwith. It is further clarified that the order is against all Respondents. 7. On 13th March, 2018, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Commercial Appeal (L) No. 125 of 2018 against the Order of Justice K.R.Shriram dated 7th March, 2018. Interestingly, the Order dated 20th June, 2017 has not been challenged by the Respondents and it is only the Order containing the clarification dated 7th March, 2018 which has been challenged and because the office objections raised in the said Appeal have not been removed, the said Appeal has not been numbered or moved by the Respondents. 8. On 26th April, 2018, the above Contempt Petition was called out before this Court when Shri N.S. Dube, the Advocate appearing for the Respondents, informed the Court that the Respondents have till date not complied with the Order dated 20th June, 2017 ; that he has given his NOC to the Respondents ; that he has sent an email on 10th April, 2018 to the Respondents stating that he shall not appear for them in any of their matters for want of instructions to which the Respondents have not bothered to respond ; and that he has also sent an SMS on the earlier day to Respondent No. 2 informing him that the matter is placed on board on 26th April, 2018. In view thereof, this Court, after recording the statements made by Advocate Dube and after recording the modus operandi of the Respondents to keep on changing Advocates thereby delaying the hearing of the matters, issued a bailable warrant of arrest against Respondent No.2 - Gaurang Doshi in the sum of Rs.15,000/- made returnable on 27th April, 2018 at 03.00 p.m. 9. On 27th April, 2018, Respondent No. 2 appeared before the Court. On 27th April, 2018, Respondent No. 2 appeared before the Court. On that day, an Order was passed in the above Contempt Petition discharging Advocate Shri N.S.Dube from appearing for the Respondents and directing Respondent No. 2 to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing. 10. On 2nd May, 2018, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appeared and sought time to engage an Advocate in the matter. 11. On 4th May, 2018, Mr. Hemang Engineer I/b. M/s. Gordhandas and Fozdar (wrongly recorded in the Order as instructed by N.Dubey ) appeared for the Respondents. On that day, Respondent No. 2 handed over a cheque of Rs. 10 Lacs issued in favour of Petitioner No. 1 and also gave an undertaking that the said cheque shall be honoured upon being presented for encashment. As recorded in the Order dated 4th May, 2018, the Respondents waived service of notice and by consent, the Contempt Petition was placed for final hearing on 10th May, 2018 in Chambers. 12. On 10th May, 2018, this Court recorded that the undertaking given by Respondent No. 2 and recorded in the Order dated 4th May, 2018 was once again breached since the said cheque of Rs.10 Lacs was not honoured on the ground that the ''account was blocked''. On this day, a Pay Order of Rs.9.25 Lacs was tendered and it was informed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid in cash to the Advocate for the Petitioners. Again on that day, Mr.Gaurang Doshi failed to remain present. The Advocate for Mr. Gaurang Doshi informed the Court that though he had informed Mr. Gaurang Doshi that the present proceedings are filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and he has to remain present in Court, he has not heeded his advise and has left for Dubai and from there he will be proceeding to London. On a query raised by the Court as to who has paid for Dubai and London and the purpose of the said visit, the Court was informed by the Manager of Mr. Gaurang Doshi that one Renu Patel of K.V. Pictures has sent tickets to Mr. Gaurang Doshi and the purpose of his visit is to arrange for finance from Ms. Patel. As regards the dishonest explanation, which Mr. Gaurang Doshi that one Renu Patel of K.V. Pictures has sent tickets to Mr. Gaurang Doshi and the purpose of his visit is to arrange for finance from Ms. Patel. As regards the dishonest explanation, which Mr. Gaurang Doshi expected the Court to believe, this Court inter alia recorded in paragraphs 6 and 7 of its Order dated 10th May, 2018 as follows : 6. The above explanation sought to be given on behalf of Mr. Doshi to cover up for his absence before the Court today, is not only a blatant lie but is a grossly dishonest explanation. Mr. Doshi expects the Court to believe that Ms. Renu Patel of K.V. Pictures, would send Mr. Doshi air tickets, and that too for an international sector of Dubai-London, just to facilitate Mr. Doshi to raise finance from her. In other words the proposed financer Ms. Renu Patel, is not only helping Mr. Doshi arrange for finance through her, but is also sponsoring his air-tickets to Dubai and then onward to London, which is totally preposterous. 7. However, if one were to go through the Orders passed against Mr. Doshi in the past by this Court, in several other matters, his dishonesty in complying with the Orders of the Court is evident. The Contempt Petition is therefore placed for hearing and final disposal on 7th June, 2018, first on board, when Mr.Gaurang Doshi shall remain present before this Court, failing which the Court shall be once again constrained to issue a non-bailable warrant against him. 13. On 7th June, 2018, Advocate Hemang Engineer instructed by M/s. Gordhandas and Fozdar appeared for the Respondents and informed the Court that Mr. Gaurang Doshi is once again not present in Court. Advocate Engineer informed the Court that he will be coming to the Court directly from the Airport. In view thereof, on 7th June, 2018, this Court passed the following Order : Mr.Gaurang Doshi is not present in Court. The Court is informed that he will be coming to the Court directly from the Airport. He is therefore, once again directed to remain present before this Court on 19th June, 2018 at 11.00 a.m. Stand over to 19 th July, 2018 . The date 19th July, 2018 was incorrectly typed in place of 19th June, 2018. 14. However, even on 19th June, 2018, Mr. He is therefore, once again directed to remain present before this Court on 19th June, 2018 at 11.00 a.m. Stand over to 19 th July, 2018 . The date 19th July, 2018 was incorrectly typed in place of 19th June, 2018. 14. However, even on 19th June, 2018, Mr. Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No. 2 failed to remain present and his Advocate informed the Court that he has left for Dubai. 15. On 2nd July, 2018, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners has tendered a Draft Amendment and sought leave to amend the above Contempt Petition in terms of the Draft Amendment. By an order dated 2nd July, 2018, the Draft Amendment was taken on record and marked ''X'' for identification. The Petitioners were allowed to carry out amendments in terms of the Draft Amendment marked ''X'' on or before 6th July, 2018. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners was directed to serve a copy of the amended Contempt Petition on the Advocate for the Respondents. The Respondents were granted liberty to file their Affidavit, if so advised, within a period of one week from the date of the Order i.e. 2nd July, 2018. 16. On 16th July, 2018, this Court passed the following Order : Mr. Hemang Engineer, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has accepted service of the amended Contempt Petition. The learned Advocate for the Respondents on instructions waives service of notice. By consent, the Contempt Petition is placed for hearing and final disposal on 30th July, 2018 under the caption ''First on Board''. 17. On 30th July, 2018, at the request of the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents, the Contempt Petition was placed for hearing on 7th August, 2018. 18. On 8th August, 2018, when the matter was called out, a cheque of Rs.10 Lacs was handed over by the Advocate for the Respondents to the Advocate for the Petitioners. The same was accepted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioners. 19. On 20th August, 2018, this Court was informed that the cheque of Rs.10 Lacs was dishonoured. This Court therefore passed an Order on 20th August, 2018, paragraph 2 of which is reproduced hereunder : 2. As expected, upon presentment, the cheque of Rs.10 Lakhs is dishonoured by the bankers of Mr. Gaurang Doshi. Mr. 19. On 20th August, 2018, this Court was informed that the cheque of Rs.10 Lacs was dishonoured. This Court therefore passed an Order on 20th August, 2018, paragraph 2 of which is reproduced hereunder : 2. As expected, upon presentment, the cheque of Rs.10 Lakhs is dishonoured by the bankers of Mr. Gaurang Doshi. Mr. Gaurang Doshi has now sent an email dated 19 th August, 2018 to his Advocate stating that the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was wired but due to sudden announcement of EID all banks in Mumbai are closed till 25th August, 2018. The statement made by Mr. Gaurang Doshi is false and incorrect to his knowledge, since the cheque was dated 7th August, 2018 and the the Banks in Dubai are closed only for 6 days i.e. from 20th August, 2018 to 25 th August, 2018. Mr.Gaurang Doshi is therefore, directed to remain present before this Court on 30th August, 2018 failing which the Court shall pass necessary orders to ensure his presence before this Court. Stand over to 30th August, 2018, first on board. 20. On 30th August, 2018, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners handed over an email received from Mr.Gaurang Doshi stating that he will be able to get a Pay Order of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- by 6th September, 2018 in Court and will handover the same to the Petitioners. By the said email, Mr.Gaurang Doshi requested the Petitioners to agree to have the matter placed on 6th September, 2018. An email forwarded to Mr. Gaurang Doshi by his Advocate dated 27th August, 2018 calling upon him to bring the Demand Draft in the name of Scorg International Consulting Private Limited (Petitioner) was also produced in Court. In view thereof, on 30th August, 2018, this Court passed the following Order : The learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 undertakes that Mr. Gaurang Doshi shall remain present before this Court on 6th September, 2018. The undertaking is accepted. Stand over to 6th September, 2018. 21. On 31st August, 2018, an email was forwarded by the Advocate for the Respondents to Mr.Gaurang Doshi, which reads as under : Your matter was on board on 30-8-2018 and now adjourned to 6-9-2018. Gaurang Doshi shall remain present before this Court on 6th September, 2018. The undertaking is accepted. Stand over to 6th September, 2018. 21. On 31st August, 2018, an email was forwarded by the Advocate for the Respondents to Mr.Gaurang Doshi, which reads as under : Your matter was on board on 30-8-2018 and now adjourned to 6-9-2018. You have to carry Pay order of Rs.1,15,00,000/- in the name of M/s.Scorg International Consulting Pvt.Ltd. The Court has issued a direction to remain present in Court on 6-9- 2018, failing which necessary order will be passed against you. Your undertaking is also recorded by the Court. 22. Mr. Gaurang Doshi has thereafter neither paid the amount nor appeared before the Court despite specific direction of this Court. 23. Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Advocate appearing for the Petitioners has taken me through the above facts and has submitted that the Respondents have willfully / intentionally disobeyed and contumaciously breached and committed contempt of the Order dated 20th June, 2017 by not depositing an amount of Rs. 1,25,11,111/- in this Court as directed by this Court in its Order dated 20th June, 2017. He has submitted that Mr. Gaurang Doshi has not even bothered to file his Reply to the Contempt Petition. He has submitted that Justice K.R.Shriram has in his Order dated 20th June, 2017 recorded how the dishonest conduct of Mr. Gaurang Doshi is repeatedly deprecated by the Single Judges of this Court in their respective orders. 24. Dr. Chandrachud also submitted that repeated/frequent visits of Respondent No. 2 to the countries outside India also shows that though the Respondents have sufficient funds to stay abroad for long periods of time, they have willfully and intentionally disobeyed the orders passed by this Court by not depositing the amount of Rs.1,25,11,111/-as ordered by this Court in its Order dated 20th June, 2017. 25. Dr. Chandrachud has submitted that, as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. Mohan Lal , (2000) 6 SCC 259 (paragraph 5), if an Order does not specify the time within which the amount has to be deposited, it is well-settled that it has to be deposited forthwith. 25. Dr. Chandrachud has submitted that, as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. Mohan Lal , (2000) 6 SCC 259 (paragraph 5), if an Order does not specify the time within which the amount has to be deposited, it is well-settled that it has to be deposited forthwith. He submitted that it is only with the intention to cover up their willful disobedience of the Order dated 20th June, 2017 that the Respondents tried to raise the defence that the Order dated 20th June, 2017 does not specify the time within which an amount has to be deposited. He also submitted that merely because a Decree is executable does not mean that a contempt action would not lie. If the breach of the Order amounts to willful disobedience, then a contempt action will certainly lie. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana , (1994) 6 SCC 332 (paragrph 9) ; Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya , (2004) 1 SCC 360 (paragraph 12) ; Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang , (2006) 11 SCC 114 (paragraph 24). 26. As regards the defense raised by Respondent No. 3 in her Affidavit that she was not a party to the above Arbitration Petition filed under Section 9 of the Act and she assails the Order passed in the said Arbitration Petition, Dr.Chandrachud relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Prithwi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand , (2004) 7 SCC 261 (paragraphs 5 and 8) wherein it is held that it is impermissible for a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the Order against which the contempt has been committed. 27. As regards the defence raised by Respondent No. 3 in her Affidavit that the Director cannot be liable for contempt committed by the Company, Dr.Chandrachud has relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in E.Bapanaiah v. K.S. Raju , (2015) 1 SCC 451 (at paragraph 15, 16, 18, 30) wherein it is held that a Director can be liable for a contempt committed by the Company especially when it is not the case of the Director that she/he did not know of the Order or took steps to ensure that it is complied with. 28. Dr. 28. Dr. Chandrachud submitted that the Respondents therefore have no regard or respect for the Courts and the Orders passed by the Courts and therefore this Court may grant maximum punishment to the Respondents for committing willful breach of the Order dated 20th June, 2017. 29. Mr. Hemang Engineer, Advocate appearing for the Respondents has submitted that the conduct of Shri Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No. 2 is indeed contemptous, the same cannot be defended and therefore he has nothing to say in his defense. However, he submits that though Respondent No. 3 is also guilty of committing contempt of Court, this Court may keep in mind her advanced age, accept her unconditional apology and award minimum punishment to her. 30. I have considered the submissions advanced by Dr.Chandrachud, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners. 31. Shri Gaurang Doshi has admittedly not deposited the amount of Rs.1,25,11,111/- in Court as directed by Justice K.R. Shriram in his Order dated 20th June, 2017. He has not filed his Affidavit in Reply to the Contempt Petition till date. As stated above, he is visiting Dubai and London and residing there for several months. He is giving a dishonest explanation to this Court that he is going abroad to borrow monies and the person from whom he is trying to borrow funds is paying for his air tickets to go abroad and back. Though by an Order dated 20th April, 2017, he and his mother were directed by Justice G.S. Patel to disclose their assets, they have, till date, willfully disobeyed the same because the said disclosure would reveal their financial status and would be conclusive evidence of them having sufficient funds to pay their creditors and them being in a position to comply with the Orders of the Court. Instead, the Respondents first contended that Justice Shriram has, in his Order, not stated as to when the amount of Rs.1,25,11,111/- should be deposited in Court. Justice Shriram correctly held that since no time is fixed for depositing the amount, it would mean that the amount has to be deposited forthwith. In fact, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Deep Chand v. Mohan Lal (supra) held that Generally a decree or order become enforceable from its date . 32. As submitted by Dr. Justice Shriram correctly held that since no time is fixed for depositing the amount, it would mean that the amount has to be deposited forthwith. In fact, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Deep Chand v. Mohan Lal (supra) held that Generally a decree or order become enforceable from its date . 32. As submitted by Dr. Chandrachud and as can be seen from the several Orders passed by this Court, Shri Gaurang Doshi - Respondent No. 2 has no respect or regard for the Court of law and its Orders. It is not that he has, for the first time, breached an Order passed by this Court and indulged in contumacious conduct by committing breach of the Order dated 20th June, 2017. In fact, by the Order dated 20th June, 2017 itself, Justice K.R.Shriram has taken cognizance of the past conduct of Shri Gaurang Doshi - Respondent No. 2 as follows : ........ The respondents were represented even on 20 th April, 2017, when this Court was pleased to make an ad-interim order in terms of prayer (c) directing the respondents to make a disclosure of all their assets. No affidavit in compliance of this order has been filed. No explanation is coming forth as to why the order dated 20 th April, 2017 has not been complied. When this petition was listed on 13 th June, 2017, nobody appeared for the respondents and the matter was stood over to today. Even today, the counsel for the respondents is unable to give any reason why the order has not been complied with........ 4. I have seen the conduct of the respondents. Paragraph 3.9 of the petition reads as under :- 3.9 The Petitioners apprehend that the Respondents are going to dispose of their assets in such a manner so as to defeat any Award which may eventually be passed in their favour. In fact, annexed hereinunder are orders which have been passed by this Hon''ble Court against Respondent No.2 which speak for themselves and which reveal the conduct of Respondent No.2. The said orders reveal that Respondent No.2 has no respect of orders passed by this Hon''ble Court, and the Petitioners therefore apprehend that the Respondents will make every possible attempt to frustrate and/or defeat any Award which might eventually be passed against the Respondents in the arbitration. The said orders reveal that Respondent No.2 has no respect of orders passed by this Hon''ble Court, and the Petitioners therefore apprehend that the Respondents will make every possible attempt to frustrate and/or defeat any Award which might eventually be passed against the Respondents in the arbitration. Thus :- i) In the order of a learned Single Judge of this Hon''ble Court in Contempt Petition (L). 55 of 2016 in Arbitration Petition No.91 of 2013, it was observed that Respondent No.2 herein has repeatedly made false statements before this Court [paragraph number 7], that Respondent No.2 herein has willfully made false statements through his Advocate before this Court on 4 th August 2016 and has willfully breached the order dated 22 nd August 2016 and on 24th August 2016, and thereafter, again made a false statement before this Court........... Consequently, a contempt show cause notice was issued against Respondent No.2. A copy of of the order dated 30th July 2016 passed by this Hon''ble Court is annexed herewith at Exhibit- H . ii) In the order dated 19th August 2016 in the said matter, the learned Single Judge observed that the counsel who had appeared for Respondent No.2 on the earlier occasion had not appeared before the Court on that date (indicating that the said counsel had perhaps returned the brief ). It was also recorded that as the learned Senior Advocate who was appearing for Respondent No.2 on that date had been incorrectly instructed, both the learned Senior Advocate and the learned junior counsel who had appeared for Respondent No.2 herein on the said date were also returning their respective briefs to Respondent No. 2. A copy of the order dated 19th August, 2016 passed by this Hon''ble Court is annexed herewith at Exhibit-I. iii) On 7th March, 2017, a learned Single Judge of this Hon''ble Court recorded that the attorney who was representing Respondent No. 2 before this Hon''ble Court was seeking a discharge as she was not being given instructions by Respondent No. 2 herein. A copy of the order dated 7th March, 2017 passed by this Hon''ble Court is annexed herewith at Exhibit-J. iv) In the order dated 10th March, 2017, a learned Single Judge of this Hon''ble Court observed that Respondent No. 2 herein is in breach of at least two orders of this Court and possibly as many as four. A copy of the order dated 7th March, 2017 passed by this Hon''ble Court is annexed herewith at Exhibit-J. iv) In the order dated 10th March, 2017, a learned Single Judge of this Hon''ble Court observed that Respondent No. 2 herein is in breach of at least two orders of this Court and possibly as many as four. His strategy and tactics of engaging Advocates and discharging them at the last minute (Ms.Malhotra is the seventh in the series and she was discharged on the last occasion and here today only at my request), will not work any longer. (paragraph 2). A copy of the order dated 10th March, 2017 passed by this Hon''ble Court is annexed herewith at Exhibit-K. v) In the order dated 17th March, 2017, a learned Single Judge of this Hon''ble Court observed that Respondent No. 2 herein was once again ...... attempting to mislead the Court (paragraph 5). A copy of the order dated 17th March, 2017 passed by this Hon''ble Court is annexed herewith at Exhibit-L. vi) The said matter appears to still be pending. vii) In fact, the said orders reveal that Respondent No. 2 has absolutely no rights in the Film Aankhen 2 , and that he obtained financing from the Petitioners on the false assurance / promise that he did, in fact, have such a right to make the said film. 5. There are orders against the respondents obs1erving the conduct of the respondents. Even contempt petition has been filed by other parties against the respondents. In my view, no purpose will be served in granting further time to the respondents and this is one of those cases where the petition should be made absolute without any further delay. 33. Even thereafter, the Respondent failed to deposit the amount with the Prothonotary and Senior Master. As set out earlier, though the Respondents have filed an Appeal impugning the clarificatory Order passed by Justice Shriram on 7th March, 2018, they have not removed office objections raised in the said Appeal and have not moved the said Appeal and the Order passed by Justice Shriram dated 20th June, 2017 continues to be in force. As set out earlier, though the Respondents have filed an Appeal impugning the clarificatory Order passed by Justice Shriram on 7th March, 2018, they have not removed office objections raised in the said Appeal and have not moved the said Appeal and the Order passed by Justice Shriram dated 20th June, 2017 continues to be in force. In fact, on 26th April, 2018 when the above Contempt Petition was called out before this Court, the Advocate for the Respondents Shri N.S. Dube informed the Court that not only the Respondents have not complied with the Order dated 20th June, 2017 but he has given his NOC to the Respondents and he has sent an email dated 10th April, 2018 to the Respondents stating that he (Advocate Dube) shall not appear in any of their matters for want of instructions, to which the Respondents have not bothered to respond and further that he has also sent SMS on the earlier day i.e. 25th April, 2018 to Respondent No. 2 informing him that the matter is placed on board on 26th April, 2018. The Court after recording the statement made by Advocate Dube and after recording the modus operandi of the Respondents to keep on changing the Advocate thereby delaying the hearing of the matter, was constrained to issue a bailable warrant of arrest against Respondent No. 2, which was made returnable on 27th April, 2018 at 03.00 p.m. On 27th April, 2018, Shri Gaurang Doshi was present. His Advocate Shri Dubey was allowed to take discharge and the matter was adjourned to 2nd May, 2018 as the Respondents again sought time to appoint an Advocate. On 4th May, 2018, the Respondents were represented by their present Advocate. On that day, Respondent No. 2 handed over a cheque of Rs.10 Lacs drawn in favour of Petitioner No. 1 to the Advocate for the Petitioners and gave an undertaking that the said cheque shall be honoured upon being presented for encashment. As recorded in the said Order, the Respondents waived service of notice and by consent, the Contempt Petition was placed for final hearing on 10th May, 2018 in Chambers. 34. On 10th May, 2018, this Court recorded that the undertaking given by Respondent No. 2 and recorded in the Order dated 4th May, 2018 was once again breached since the cheque of Rs.10 Lacs was not honoured. 34. On 10th May, 2018, this Court recorded that the undertaking given by Respondent No. 2 and recorded in the Order dated 4th May, 2018 was once again breached since the cheque of Rs.10 Lacs was not honoured. On that day, a Pay Order of Rs.9.25 Lacs was tendered and the Court was informed that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid in cash to the Advocate for the Petitioners. However, Shri Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No. 2 failed to remain present. His Advocate informed the Court that though he had informed Shri Gaurang Doshi that his presence is required in Court, he has not heeded his advise and has left for Dubai and from there he will be proceeding to London. As set out earlier, on a query raised by the Court as to who has paid for his tickets to Dubai and London and the purpose of the said visit, the Court was informed by the Manager of Respondent No. 2 that one Ms.Renu Patel of K.V.Pictures has sent tickets to Respondent No. 2 and the purpose of his visit is to arrange for finance from Ms.Patel. The relevant paragraphs of the said Order dated 10th May, 2018 recording that the explanation given on behalf of Respondent No. 2 is grossly dishonest are set out in paragraph 12 above. The hearing of Contempt Petition was adjourned to 7th June, 2018 and the Respondents were directed to remain present in Court. 35. On 7th June, 2018, Shri Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No. 2 was once again not present in Court when the matter was called out. The Court was informed that he will be coming to the Court directly from the Airport. He was therefore once again directed to remain present before this Court on 19th June, 2018 at 11.00 a.m. 36. Despite specific direction given by this Court that Shri Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No. 2 shall remain present before this Court on 19th June, 2018 at 11.00 a.m. on that day his Advocate informed the Court that Mr. Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No. 2 has left for Dubai. 37. Despite specific direction given by this Court that Shri Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No. 2 shall remain present before this Court on 19th June, 2018 at 11.00 a.m. on that day his Advocate informed the Court that Mr. Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No. 2 has left for Dubai. 37. On 2nd July, 2018, the Advocate for the Petitioners was allowed to amend the above Contempt Petition and on 16th July, 2018, the Advocate appearing for the Respondents accepted the service of the amended Contempt Petition and waived service of notice and by consent, the Contempt Petition was placed for hearing and final disposal on 30th July, 2018 under the caption ''For First on Board''. On 30th July, 2018, at the request of the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents, the Contempt Petition was placed for hearing on 7th August, 2018 and on 8th August, 2018, when the matter was called out, a cheque of Rs.10 Lacs was handed over by the Advocate for the Respondents to the Advocate for the Petitioners, which cheque was accepted by the Petitioners without prejudice to the rights and contentions. On 20th August, 2018, this Court was informed that the cheque of Rs.10 Lacs was dishonoured. Shri Gaurang Doshi was therefore directed to remain present before this Court on 30th August, 2018. Shri Gaurang Doshi failed to remain present before this Court on 30th August, 2018 despite specific direction by the Court. Instead, on 30th August, 2018, the Advocate for the Petitioners handed over an email received from Shri Gaurang Doshi stating that he will be able to get Pay Order of Rs.1,15,00,000/- by 6th September, 2018 in Court and will handover the same to the Petitioners. By the said email, Mr.Gaurang Doshi requested the Petitioners to agree to have the matter placed on 6th September, 2018. An email forwarded to Mr.Gaurang Doshi by his Advocate dated 27th August, 2018 calling upon him to bring the Demand Draft in the name of Scorg International Consulting Private Limited (Petitioner), was also produced in Court. In view thereof, on 30th August, 2018, this Court passed the Order recording that Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 undertake that Shri Gaurang Doshi shall remain present before this Court on 6th September, 2018. The undertaking was accepted. In view thereof, on 30th August, 2018, this Court passed the Order recording that Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 undertake that Shri Gaurang Doshi shall remain present before this Court on 6th September, 2018. The undertaking was accepted. Shri Gaurang Doshi has thereafter neither appeared before the Court nor has he paid any further amount to the Petitioners as agreed / ordered / undertaken. Instead, Shri Gaurang Doshi has chosen to remain abroad for several months. 38. I am in agreement with Dr. Chandrachud that merely because a Decree is executable does not mean that a contempt will not lie. If the breach of the Order amounts to willful disobedience, then a contempt will lie. This proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the following cases : i) Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana , (1994) 6 SCC 332 , Paragraph 9 of which is reproduced hereunder :- 9. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') defines "Civil Contempt" to mean "willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court...". Where the contempt consists in failure to comply with or carry out an order of the court made in favour of the party, it is a civil contempt. The person or persons in whose favour such order or direction has been made can move the Court for initiating proceeding for contempt against the alleged contemner, with a view to enforce the right flowing from the order or direction in question. But such a proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under CPC. The party in whose favour an order has been passed, is entitled to the benefit of such order. The Court while considering the issue as to whether the alleged contemner should be punished for not having complied and carried out the direction of the Court, has to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while defining civil contempt, have said that it must be willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. That is why the framers of the Act while defining civil contempt, have said that it must be willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. Before a contemner is punished for non compliance of the direction of a court the Court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was willful and intentional. The Civil Court while executing a decree against the judgment debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was willful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the court to execute the decree whatever may be consequences thereof. But wile examining the grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to initiate the proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before any such contemner is held guilty and punished, the Court has to record a finding that such disobedience was willful and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of the court, the Court is satisfied that although there has been a disobedience but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances which it was not possible for the contemner to comply with the order, the Court may not punish the alleged contemner. ii) Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya , (2004) 1 SCC 360 , Paragraph 12 of which is reproduced hereunder : 12. The submission of Shri R.F. Nariman, learned counsel for the respondents, that this Court having passed a consent decree, the remedy of the petitioner lay in executing the same and there was no occasion for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents has hardly any merit. The willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court amounts to "civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2(b) Contempt of Courts Act. The respondents having committed breach of the undertaking given to this Court in the consent terms filed on 28.7.1999, they are clearly liable for having committed contempt of Court. The fact that the petitioner can execute the decree can have no bearing on the contempt committed by the respondents. The law in England on the subject of breach of undertaking given to Court is same. The fact that the petitioner can execute the decree can have no bearing on the contempt committed by the respondents. The law in England on the subject of breach of undertaking given to Court is same. In Volume 9(1) Halsbury''s Laws of England Para 482, it has been stated as under : "An undertaking given to the court in pending proceedings by a person or corporation (or by a government department or Minister of the Crown acting in his official capacity) on the faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action or inaction, has the same force as an injunction made by the court and a breach of the undertaking is misconduct amounting to contempt." 39. As stated hereinabove, the Respondent No.3 who is mother of Respondent No.2 has, on 17th January, 2018, filed her Reply which was served on the Petitioner''s Advocate. Her defence appears to be that she was not party to the Section 9 Petition, and she assails the Order passed in the Section 9 Petition. It is impermissible for a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the Order against which the contempt has been committed. This proposition is laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand , (2004) 7 SCC 261 , Paragraphs 5 and 8 are relevant and reproduced hereunder :- 5. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. , (2001) 10 SCC 496 . The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the concerned party to approach the higher Court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher Court. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the concerned party to approach the higher Court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher Court. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment or order. Though strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the State of Bihar on a three-Judge Bench decision in Niaz Mohammad and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.,1994 6 SCC 352, we find that the same has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the question arose about the impossibility to obey the order. If that was the stand of the State, the least it could have done was to assail correctness of the judgment before the higher Court. State took diametrically opposite stands before this Court. One was that there was no specific direction to do anything in particular and, second was what was required to be done has been done. If what was to be done has been done, it cannot certainly be said that there was impossibility to carry out the orders. In any event, the High Court has not recorded a finding that the direction given earlier was impossible to be carried out or that the direction given has been complied with. 8. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. In that view of the matter, the order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration. It shall deal with the application in its proper perspective in accordance with law afresh. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding acceptability or otherwise of the application for initiation of contempt proceedings. 40. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has, in the case of E. Bapanaiah v. K. S. Raju , (2015) 1 SCC 451 , laid down that a director can be liable for a contempt committed by the company, especially when it is not the case of the director that she/he did not know of the order or took steps to ensure that it is complied with. 41. I am therefore more than satisfied that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Mr. Gaurang Doshi and his mother - Ms. Madhukanta Vinodrai Doshi respectively have willfully breached and disobeyed the Order passed by Justice K.R. Shriram dated 20th June, 2017, as clarified by an Order dated 7th March, 2018, by not depositing the amount of Rs.1,25,11,111/- as directed by Justice K.R. Shriram in his Order. 42. Only since Respondent No. 3 is of very advanced age, I am accepting the unconditional apology tendered by her and imposing a fine of Rs.2000/- on her for being guilty of breaching the Order passed by this Court dated 20th June, 2017, as clarified by an Order dated 7th March, 2018, and consequently being guilty of willful contempt of this Court. 43. As set hereinabove, Shri Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No. 2 has repeatedly made false statements in Court and has always disobeyed the directions of the Court including the breach of the Order directing him to make disclosure of all his assets. 43. As set hereinabove, Shri Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No. 2 has repeatedly made false statements in Court and has always disobeyed the directions of the Court including the breach of the Order directing him to make disclosure of all his assets. He is therefore not guilty of the willful breach of the Order dated 20th June, 2017 for the first time but has before and after filing of the Contempt Petition throughout consistently shown disrespect and disregard to the Court and the orders passed by it. 44. I have in fact, in one of my Order dated 20th March, 2012 passed in Notice of Motion No. 33 of 2011 in Insolvency Petition No. 31 of 2002, recorded that an unhealthy trend seems to have set in amongst a section of litigants, who often brazenly and with impunity flout provisions of Law and / or Orders passed by the Courts. At such times, the Court cannot be a mute spectator, but needs to step in and be proactive in stopping this unhealthy trend, which would otherwise corrode the faith of the common man in the Judiciary as a means of redressing his grievances. Unfortunately, even after five years from the date of the said Order, there is no improvement in this unhealthy trend but instead the same is on the rise day-by-day, the reason for which, in my view, is the leniency shown by the Courts in such matters. A lenient sentence in this case to Shri Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No. 2 would mean and send a message that the Court is itself not outraged by the flagrant disregard shown by the Contemnors / Respondents. In such circumstances, it would further indicate that the litigants can flout provisions of the Law with impunity and still be shown mercy and forgiveness by Courts. Such a trend, in my opinion, would destroy the very principle of deterrence. 45. In the circumstances, I pass the following Order : i. Shri Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No.2 is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months in civil prison for committing willful breach of the Order dated 20th June, 2017 as clarified by an Order dated 7th March, 2018 and thereby committing contempt of this Court. ii. Office to issue a Warrant of Arrest against Shri Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No.2, which shall be forthwith executed by the Office of Sheriff of Bombay. iii. ii. Office to issue a Warrant of Arrest against Shri Gaurang Doshi / Respondent No.2, which shall be forthwith executed by the Office of Sheriff of Bombay. iii. The Petitioner shall forthwith deposit an amount of Rs.5000/- towards diet charges. iv. The unconditional apology tendered by Ms. Madhukanta Vinodrai Doshi / Respondent No.3 is accepted. v. Ms. Madhukanta Vinodrai Doshi / Respondent No.2 shall pay a fine of Rs.2000/- within a period of one week from the date of uploading of this Order. vi. The above Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed off.