https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278588 The SC held that no contempt arose from the extension of time to vacate the premises because that relief was granted on the basis of an agreement between the parties, not any undertaking by the respondent; the limited contempt enquiry could not be expanded into a separate factual dispute over possession of other portions of the house. However, filing false affidavits stating that possession had been delivered on an earlier date amounted to criminal contempt because the false statements obstructed execution and interfered with the due course of justice. The unconditional apology was rejected as not genuine or bona fide, and punishment by fine was imposed. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:06:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278588 The SC held that no contempt arose from the extension of time to vacate the premises because that relief was granted on the basis of an agreement between the parties, not any undertaking by the respondent; the limited contempt enquiry could not be expanded into a separate factual dispute over possession of other portions of the house. However, filing false affidavits stating that possession had been delivered on an earlier date amounted to criminal contempt because the false statements obstructed execution and interfered with the due course of justice. The unconditional apology was rejected as not genuine or bona fide, and punishment by fine was imposed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278588