https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199079 Wilful contempt was not established where the alleged demolition occurred after the interim restraint had expired, so no subsisting order was in force at the time of the act. Although the conduct was not treated as fully bona fide and the removal of the superstructure was described as a mistake and inadvertence, the Court accepted the unconditional apology and the statement that possession had been restored. On that basis, the Court found no intentional or wilful disobedience and declined to treat the conduct as contempt. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:39:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199079 Wilful contempt was not established where the alleged demolition occurred after the interim restraint had expired, so no subsisting order was in force at the time of the act. Although the conduct was not treated as fully bona fide and the removal of the superstructure was described as a mistake and inadvertence, the Court accepted the unconditional apology and the statement that possession had been restored. On that basis, the Court found no intentional or wilful disobedience and declined to treat the conduct as contempt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199079