<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1976 (3) TMI 248 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278882</link>
    <description>An express undertaking given to the Court and recorded in the order is enforceable like an injunction when the Court sanctions action on that assurance. Deliberate breach of such an undertaking constitutes contempt of court, and the absence of apology may reinforce the finding of wilful disobedience. Subsequent surrender of possession does not wipe out the original breach. The Supreme Court of India accordingly upheld the contempt conviction and sentence, and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=559646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (3) TMI 248 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278882</link>
      <description>An express undertaking given to the Court and recorded in the order is enforceable like an injunction when the Court sanctions action on that assurance. Deliberate breach of such an undertaking constitutes contempt of court, and the absence of apology may reinforce the finding of wilful disobedience. Subsequent surrender of possession does not wipe out the original breach. The Supreme Court of India accordingly upheld the contempt conviction and sentence, and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>