if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable

Law is very well settled by the Supreme Court that the weapons of contempt cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. In order to constitute contempt, the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. 7.1. In the case of Dr. U. N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association & Anr., (2022) 1 SCC 101, it is ruled as under; “8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the “wilful” disobedience. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these 30 proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. 15. It is well-settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. [See Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak [Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak, (2008) 14 SCC 392 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 497] and Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. CESC Ltd. [Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. CESC Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 592] ]