https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199718 In civil contempt, custodial punishment is justified only in exceptional cases where the disobedience substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice. The High Court found that guilt was not in dispute because the appellant had admitted disobedience of the court order and breach of the undertaking, so the only issue was proportionality of sentence. As the order had been substantially complied with, the respondent had received the salary, and the surrounding circumstances were mitigating, the direction for civil prison was set aside. The contempt finding was maintained, but punishment was confined to a fine of Rs. 2,000. en-us Tue, 17 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 15:58:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199718 In civil contempt, custodial punishment is justified only in exceptional cases where the disobedience substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice. The High Court found that guilt was not in dispute because the appellant had admitted disobedience of the court order and breach of the undertaking, so the only issue was proportionality of sentence. As the order had been substantially complied with, the respondent had received the salary, and the surrounding circumstances were mitigating, the direction for civil prison was set aside. The contempt finding was maintained, but punishment was confined to a fine of Rs. 2,000. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199718