https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278880 A State, when validly impleaded as a defendant, is not immune from proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2(3) CPC for disobedience of an injunction; Article 300 of the Constitution does not create any exemption from the consequences of breach, although enforcement may be adapted to the State's character as a public authority. The absence of deliberate intent, and the fact that the prohibited act may be difficult to reverse after publication, do not defeat action for breach because the rule addresses disobedience itself. The injunction's binding force on the State was affirmed and attachment was sustained. en-us Wed, 30 Jun 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278880 A State, when validly impleaded as a defendant, is not immune from proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2(3) CPC for disobedience of an injunction; Article 300 of the Constitution does not create any exemption from the consequences of breach, although enforcement may be adapted to the State's character as a public authority. The absence of deliberate intent, and the fact that the prohibited act may be difficult to reverse after publication, do not defeat action for breach because the rule addresses disobedience itself. The injunction's binding force on the State was affirmed and attachment was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Jun 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278880