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: Whether the opposite party was guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with the District Judge's order directing him to furnish the returns required for the Registrar of Companies.
Analysis: The affidavit filed on behalf of the Registrar of Companies showed that notice had been issued requiring the returns under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and that the opposite party was repeatedly granted time to comply with the order made by the District Judge. No reply was filed to controvert those allegations, and the record did not support the assertion that the returns had later been furnished. On the unchallenged material, the failure to obey the court's direction within the time allowed amounted to contempt.
Conclusion: The opposite party was held guilty of contempt of court.
TaxTMI 
