TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 alleged acts of contempt occurring beyond one year from the date of filing of the contempt case were barred by limitation under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (ii) Whether the conduct attributed to the members of the Supervisory Committee constituted criminal contempt and whether cognizance could be taken without compliance with the prescribed procedure.
Issue (i): Whether the alleged acts of contempt occurring beyond one year from the date of filing of the contempt case were barred by limitation under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Analysis: The limitation provision bars initiation of contempt proceedings after one year from the date of the alleged contempt. The acts complained of up to the withdrawal of the interlocutory application on 6 August 2020 fell outside the one-year period counted back from the filing of the contempt case on 14 September 2021. Those earlier acts could not, therefore, be taken into account for the purpose of contempt jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The alleged acts prior to 14 September 2020 were barred by limitation and could not be relied upon.
Issue (ii): Whether the conduct attributed to the members of the Supervisory Committee constituted criminal contempt and whether cognizance could be taken without compliance with the prescribed procedure.
Analysis: Criminal contempt requires conduct that scandalizes or tends to scandalize the Court, lowers or tends to lower its authority, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice. The members of the Supervisory Committee were not shown to be the persons obliged to infuse funds and implement the resolution plan, and the resolution applicant's own role remained central to implementation. The record also showed non-compliance with the special procedure for taking cognizance of criminal contempt. On these facts, the conduct alleged against the committee members did not satisfy the ingredients of criminal contempt.
Conclusion: The alleged conduct did not amount to criminal contempt and cognizance was not properly taken.
Final Conclusion: No case was made out to punish the alleged contemnors, and the contempt proceedings were brought to an end.
Ratio Decidendi: Contempt jurisdiction cannot be exercised for acts outside the statutory limitation period, and criminal contempt requires a clear, wilful act that actually scandalizes the Court, interferes with judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice, coupled with compliance with the mandatory cognizance procedure.
TaxTMI 
