https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375627 A court-accepted settlement undertaking to pay within a stipulated time was treated as an unconditional obligation, not a promise contingent on sale of assets. Later attempts to add such a condition, together with evidence that payment could have been arranged but was withheld, were found to be knowingly false and to constitute wilful disobedience interfering with the administration of justice. The Reliance companies were therefore held guilty of civil contempt. By contrast, contempt could not be maintained against the SBI Chairman because the payment obligation rested only on the Reliance companies, while SBI's role was confined to a separate sale-of-assets process. The contempt petition against the SBI Chairman was dismissed. en-us Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Feb 2019 06:11:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375627 A court-accepted settlement undertaking to pay within a stipulated time was treated as an unconditional obligation, not a promise contingent on sale of assets. Later attempts to add such a condition, together with evidence that payment could have been arranged but was withheld, were found to be knowingly false and to constitute wilful disobedience interfering with the administration of justice. The Reliance companies were therefore held guilty of civil contempt. By contrast, contempt could not be maintained against the SBI Chairman because the payment obligation rested only on the Reliance companies, while SBI's role was confined to a separate sale-of-assets process. The contempt petition against the SBI Chairman was dismissed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375627