https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169477 A judicial officer is not liable for contempt merely because an order was passed in excess of authority or on an erroneous view of powers. The controlling principle is that contempt requires wilful culpability, meaning conduct actuated by improper or corrupt motive, dishonest intent, or deliberate misconduct. Where the error is only one of judgment, or shows lack of care and caution without extraneous consideration, the penal consequence of contempt does not follow. On the facts discussed, the absence of wilful wrongdoing made the contempt finding unsustainable. en-us Fri, 14 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:26:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169477 A judicial officer is not liable for contempt merely because an order was passed in excess of authority or on an erroneous view of powers. The controlling principle is that contempt requires wilful culpability, meaning conduct actuated by improper or corrupt motive, dishonest intent, or deliberate misconduct. Where the error is only one of judgment, or shows lack of care and caution without extraneous consideration, the penal consequence of contempt does not follow. On the facts discussed, the absence of wilful wrongdoing made the contempt finding unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169477