https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218137 Contempt jurisdiction requires clear proof of wilful disobedience of a definite direction, and it cannot be used on uncertain allegations or as a means of settling personal grievances. In the oppression and mismanagement dispute, the earlier order had given the petitioner a choice to take over the company with its machinery or pursue winding-up, but the material did not show that acceptance of the takeover option was effectively communicated within time. The respondents had also made payments toward the company's liabilities, and the petitioner's delayed contempt move after knowledge of settlement with the bank weakened the claim. No wilful disobedience was established, so contempt proceedings were not maintainable. en-us Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218137 Contempt jurisdiction requires clear proof of wilful disobedience of a definite direction, and it cannot be used on uncertain allegations or as a means of settling personal grievances. In the oppression and mismanagement dispute, the earlier order had given the petitioner a choice to take over the company with its machinery or pursue winding-up, but the material did not show that acceptance of the takeover option was effectively communicated within time. The respondents had also made payments toward the company's liabilities, and the petitioner's delayed contempt move after knowledge of settlement with the bank weakened the claim. No wilful disobedience was established, so contempt proceedings were not maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218137