https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111306 Wilful breach of an express undertaking given to the Court, especially where a party suppresses material facts and makes misleading assertions to gain advantage, constitutes contempt of court. The respondents had agreed to furnish security and comply with interim directions in arbitration, but failed to provide the ordered bank guarantee, did not seek modification of that direction, and later advanced a proposal concerning property that was not shown to be a subsisting asset. Their shifting stands and nondisclosure of encumbrances and ownership claims supported a finding of deliberate misrepresentation. The Court held them guilty of contempt and allowed the petition. en-us Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111306 Wilful breach of an express undertaking given to the Court, especially where a party suppresses material facts and makes misleading assertions to gain advantage, constitutes contempt of court. The respondents had agreed to furnish security and comply with interim directions in arbitration, but failed to provide the ordered bank guarantee, did not seek modification of that direction, and later advanced a proposal concerning property that was not shown to be a subsisting asset. Their shifting stands and nondisclosure of encumbrances and ownership claims supported a finding of deliberate misrepresentation. The Court held them guilty of contempt and allowed the petition. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111306