https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278878 Contempt for non-compliance with a release order was not established because civil contempt requires wilful disobedience, and the order was not shown to have been served personally on the jail officers in a clear and unambiguous form. The delay was attributed to administrative lapse and confusion within the jail establishment rather than deliberate defiance, so the officers were not held guilty of contempt. The Court nevertheless recognised that the prisoner had remained in custody beyond the due date of release and treated the over-detention as warranting monetary relief from the State. en-us Thu, 21 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Feb 2019 11:42:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278878 Contempt for non-compliance with a release order was not established because civil contempt requires wilful disobedience, and the order was not shown to have been served personally on the jail officers in a clear and unambiguous form. The delay was attributed to administrative lapse and confusion within the jail establishment rather than deliberate defiance, so the officers were not held guilty of contempt. The Court nevertheless recognised that the prisoner had remained in custody beyond the due date of release and treated the over-detention as warranting monetary relief from the State. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278878