https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198057 Contempt jurisdiction could not be used to enforce a disputed interim arrangement or compel compliance with a mandatory direction while the stay matter in the writ petition remained undecided and the rival claims were still open. The Court treated the contempt proceedings as premature because the main controversy had not been adjudicated and no prima facie finding had been made on the disputed claim. It also left unanswered, at that stage, issues relating to maintainability of the writ petition and the effect of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was allowed to proceed before the High Court in light of the Court's observations. en-us Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:52:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198057 Contempt jurisdiction could not be used to enforce a disputed interim arrangement or compel compliance with a mandatory direction while the stay matter in the writ petition remained undecided and the rival claims were still open. The Court treated the contempt proceedings as premature because the main controversy had not been adjudicated and no prima facie finding had been made on the disputed claim. It also left unanswered, at that stage, issues relating to maintainability of the writ petition and the effect of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was allowed to proceed before the High Court in light of the Court's observations. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198057