https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278590 The court found the opposite party guilty of contempt for deliberate breach of a personal undertaking given in a second appeal, where the appellant failed to provide vacant possession of the premises by a specified date. Despite the opposite party's claim of sub-letting the premises before the suit, the court emphasized that breaching a court undertaking is contemptuous conduct. The court rejected arguments regarding the absence of the undertaking in the court order and denied a request for an adjournment, leading to a conviction of contempt with three months of simple imprisonment and a fine imposed on the opposite party. en-us Thu, 13 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:17:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278590 The court found the opposite party guilty of contempt for deliberate breach of a personal undertaking given in a second appeal, where the appellant failed to provide vacant possession of the premises by a specified date. Despite the opposite party's claim of sub-letting the premises before the suit, the court emphasized that breaching a court undertaking is contemptuous conduct. The court rejected arguments regarding the absence of the undertaking in the court order and denied a request for an adjournment, leading to a conviction of contempt with three months of simple imprisonment and a fine imposed on the opposite party. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278590