https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272476 Taking delivery in execution of a decree after service of an unclear interim stay order did not amount to punishable disobedience of an injunction under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that Rule 1 is directed to preventing waste, damage, alienation, or wrongful sale of property, and that mere possession taken in execution does not fall within that scope unless the order clearly prohibits that conduct. The conviction-like order was therefore unsustainable, and the punishment order was set aside. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 1937 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2018 15:07:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272476 Taking delivery in execution of a decree after service of an unclear interim stay order did not amount to punishable disobedience of an injunction under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that Rule 1 is directed to preventing waste, damage, alienation, or wrongful sale of property, and that mere possession taken in execution does not fall within that scope unless the order clearly prohibits that conduct. The conviction-like order was therefore unsustainable, and the punishment order was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Oct 1937 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272476