https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271831 Disobedience of an interim payment direction remained punishable in contempt because the breach occurred while the order was operative, and later disposal of the appeals did not erase that liability. The Court held that the doctrine of merger was not a rigid bar and that execution remedies did not exclude contempt where willful non-compliance was shown. On the facts, the direction was enforceable against respondents who were shown to control compliance, even though the company was not impleaded. Contempt was established against respondents nos. 3 and 4 for deliberate disobedience and false assurances, while respondents nos. 1 and 2 were not shown to have practical control and were not held guilty. en-us Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271831 Disobedience of an interim payment direction remained punishable in contempt because the breach occurred while the order was operative, and later disposal of the appeals did not erase that liability. The Court held that the doctrine of merger was not a rigid bar and that execution remedies did not exclude contempt where willful non-compliance was shown. On the facts, the direction was enforceable against respondents who were shown to control compliance, even though the company was not impleaded. Contempt was established against respondents nos. 3 and 4 for deliberate disobedience and false assurances, while respondents nos. 1 and 2 were not shown to have practical control and were not held guilty. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271831