https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272592 A special appeal was maintainable because an order conclusively deciding the maintainability of contempt proceedings had the trappings of a judgment, even though it was not an order punishing for contempt under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Contempt proceedings were not maintainable for alleged breach of a mediated settlement recorded in a judicial order, because the settlement acquired the character of an executable decree. The proper remedy for non-compliance was execution under the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 634 of the Companies Act, 1956, not contempt jurisdiction as a substitute for execution. en-us Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 May 2018 08:32:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272592 A special appeal was maintainable because an order conclusively deciding the maintainability of contempt proceedings had the trappings of a judgment, even though it was not an order punishing for contempt under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Contempt proceedings were not maintainable for alleged breach of a mediated settlement recorded in a judicial order, because the settlement acquired the character of an executable decree. The proper remedy for non-compliance was execution under the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 634 of the Companies Act, 1956, not contempt jurisdiction as a substitute for execution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272592