TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the respondents committed contempt by wilfully disobeying the interim restraint order against disposal of immovable property; (ii) Whether the petitioner lacked locus standi or the contempt petitions were barred by limitation; (iii) Whether the respondents were liable to pay interest at the contractual rate and how the payments already made were to be adjusted.
Issue (i): Whether the respondents committed contempt by wilfully disobeying the interim restraint order against disposal of immovable property.
Analysis: The interim order expressly prohibited disposal, parting with or renting out immovable property except with the Court's permission. The sale deeds were executed during the subsistence of that restraint and without leave of the Court. In contempt jurisdiction, only accidental or mistaken non-compliance can be excused, not deliberate violation. The respondents could have sought permission if sale was necessary to meet liabilities, but chose to proceed with transfers in disregard of the order.
Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the interim order.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner lacked locus standi or the contempt petitions were barred by limitation.
Analysis: The challenge to locus standi based on amalgamation was rejected because the proceedings had been instituted before amalgamation and the alleged contempt occurred before the corporate change. The limitation objection was also rejected because the relevant period was treated as running from knowledge of the contemptuous acts, not merely from the date of the original order.
Conclusion: The objections on locus standi and limitation were rejected.
Issue (iii): Whether the respondents were liable to pay interest at the contractual rate and how the payments already made were to be adjusted.
Analysis: The addendum to the loan arrangement provided for interest at 18% per annum for the pre-suit period, and that contractual rate was treated as binding for that period. For pendente lite and future interest, the Court stated that it could exercise discretion under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The payments already made were treated as having been made towards principal in the context of the parties' settlement discussions, and the Court directed calculation of the outstanding interest accordingly.
Conclusion: The contractual pre-suit interest rate was upheld, while pendente lite and future interest were left for computation at a discretionary rate.
Final Conclusion: The contempt petitions succeeded to the extent that the respondents were found in contempt, but further orders on sentence and the effect of the sale deeds were deferred for later consideration after allowing time for payment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
