https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175532 Revival of a contempt petition was contingent on compliance with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rule 3(c), requiring written consent or a legally unsustainable refusal of consent. The Court treated the earlier liberty to revive as conditional on meeting that statutory prerequisite and examined whether the Solicitor General's refusal was irrelevant, arbitrary, illegal, or unreasonable. On the reasons supplied, the refusal was not shown to be unlawful, so the conditions precedent for maintainability were not satisfied and the revival application failed. en-us Fri, 08 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:59:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175532 Revival of a contempt petition was contingent on compliance with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rule 3(c), requiring written consent or a legally unsustainable refusal of consent. The Court treated the earlier liberty to revive as conditional on meeting that statutory prerequisite and examined whether the Solicitor General's refusal was irrelevant, arbitrary, illegal, or unreasonable. On the reasons supplied, the refusal was not shown to be unlawful, so the conditions precedent for maintainability were not satisfied and the revival application failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175532