https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198051 In an appeal against conviction for contempt, the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court were not necessary parties because contempt proceedings are directed against the alleged contemner, not the judges personally; the practice of naming them as respondents was held inappropriate. Contempt for disobedience of a superior court order requires intentional breach based on knowledge from an authorised or otherwise authentic source. The appellant's purported notice through the telegram and application was not shown to be properly authenticated or supported by affidavit, and the later stay of proceedings after receipt of the formal order negatived deliberate defiance. The conviction and fine were set aside. en-us Tue, 14 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198051 In an appeal against conviction for contempt, the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court were not necessary parties because contempt proceedings are directed against the alleged contemner, not the judges personally; the practice of naming them as respondents was held inappropriate. Contempt for disobedience of a superior court order requires intentional breach based on knowledge from an authorised or otherwise authentic source. The appellant's purported notice through the telegram and application was not shown to be properly authenticated or supported by affidavit, and the later stay of proceedings after receipt of the formal order negatived deliberate defiance. The conviction and fine were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198051